State v. Warner, 165 Conn. App. 185

Defendant Blake Warner pleaded guilty under Alford to second‑degree strangulation and to violating a protective order; plea accepted after canvass and sentencing was continued.
Before sentencing, new counsel (Pattis) filed a motion to withdraw the pleas, alleging ineffective assistance by prior counsel (Riccio) for failing to investigate a purported state witness who Riccio told Warner would incriminate him.
After the court accepted the pleas, Warner confronted the purported witness who denied he was prepared to testify or had heard incriminating statements.
Warner also argued his assigned public defender at arraignment failed to request a Fernando A. hearing on the protective order’s continued necessity, which he claims denied him effective assistance of counsel.
Trial court denied a continuance and refused an evidentiary hearing, proceeded to sentence, and entered a permanent protective order; Warner appealed the denial of an evidentiary hearing to withdraw his pleas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on Warner’s claim that prior counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate a purported state witness before plea	State conceded Warner alleged specific, nonconclusory facts that warranted a hearing	Riccio’s failure to investigate rendered the plea unknowing and involuntary; hearing needed to develop record	Court of Appeals: Reversed and remanded — an evidentiary hearing is required on the ineffective‑assistance claim
Whether Warner was entitled to a hearing under State v. Fernando A. because counsel at arraignment failed to request one regarding the protective order	State argued the collateral bar rule blocks a collateral attack on the protective order and no hearing was required post‑conviction	Warner argued counsel’s failure to request a Fernando A. hearing was ineffective assistance and that he should be allowed to challenge the protective order’s validity	Court of Appeals: Denial affirmed — Fernando A. claim is barred by the collateral bar rule (per State v. Wright)

State v. Fernando A., 294 Conn. 1 (2009) (defendant may request a post‑arraignment hearing on continued necessity of a criminal protective order)
State v. Wright, 273 Conn. 418 (2005) (collateral bar rule precludes challenging validity of a court order as a defense to violating it)
State v. Salas, 92 Conn. App. 541 (2005) (when plea‑stage allegations of attorney ineffectiveness are specific and not conclusively refuted, an evidentiary hearing is required)
Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 197 Conn. 141 (1985) (party must obey court orders; contempt proceedings do not reopen order’s legal or factual basis)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (defendant may enter a guilty plea while maintaining innocence if evidence of guilt is strong)