State v. Stocking
131 Conn. App. 81
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Stocking pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to possession of child pornography in the second degree.
- The State promised a nolle prosequi on related domestic charges, no federal prosecution on the same matter, and a sentence of ten years with four years suspended, plus five years of probation, plus mandatory sex offender registration and treatment.
- Police observed nude/sexually provocative child images in Stocking's bedroom during a standoff and later seized storage media with similar images.
- Stocking asserted that his trial attorney pressured him to plead guilty and that the plea was unsupported by effective assistance and any suppression issues.
- Stocking moved to withdraw his plea before sentencing, alleging ineffective assistance and that the plea was influenced by counsel and by police illegality.
- The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, denied the withdrawal, and concluded the plea was voluntary and made with ‘free choice’ in exchange for a favorable offer; appellate review followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion denying withdrawal of the plea | Stocking contends plea was result of ineffective assistance and coercion. | State argues plea was voluntary, informed, and exchange for favorable terms. | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Whether ineffective assistance claims properly support withdrawal on direct appeal | McKay provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise suppression likelihood. | Ineffective assistance claims belong in postconviction proceedings unless tied to the plea. | Claims intertwined; court treated them as part of ruling on withdrawal and affirm denial. |
| Whether defense was prejudiced by counsel's failure to explain suppression likelihood | Counsel failed to inform of strong suppression chances, undermining voluntariness. | Counsel advised of rights and suppression potential; defendant chose plea knowingly. | Record supported that defendant understood and chose plea knowingly. |
| Whether the plea was coerced by the plea bargain and exchange terms | Plea effectively forced by advantageous terms that bought leniency. | Plea bargain was voluntary in light of multiple charges and potential harsher penalties. | Plea terms supported voluntary decision. |
| Whether the court properly weighed the suppression issues as part of withdrawal ruling | Suppression viability would undermine the basis of the plea. | Suppression issues were acknowledged but not decisive to the refusal to withdraw. | Court reasonably considered record; suppression merits not enough to withdraw. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Turner, 91 Conn.App. 17 (2005) (withdrawal standards and burden on defendant)
- State v. Gray, 63 Conn.App. 151 (2001) (ineffective assistance tie to guilty plea and withdrawal standards)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (Alford plea framework: guilty plea without admission of guilt)