State v. Wilkins, 159 Conn.App. 443

April 4, 2010, Radcliff DeRoche was shot and killed while riding an ATV in New Haven; defendant was across the street and fired multiple shots.
Charges: murder under § 53a-54a(a), carrying a pistol without a permit under § 29-35, and criminal possession of a pistol or revolver under § 53a-217c(a)(1); jury found him guilty on the first two counts and bench trial verdict on the third.
Defendant contends his waiver of a probable cause hearing was not knowing or voluntary due to an allegedly inadequate canvass and possible conflicts of interest affecting defense counsel’s advice.
Trial court conducted a canvass on September 22, 2010, with defense counsel stating waiver was advised and voluntary; defendant affirmed, court found waiver knowing and voluntary.
April 27, 2012, the public defender disclosed conflicts of interest (office had represented multiple state witnesses); special public defender appointed; record insufficient to show adverse effect on counsel’s performance.
Court affirms judgment; finds waiver valid and rejects conflicts claims for lack of adequate record to prove adverse effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the probable cause waiver knowing and voluntary?	Wilkins (defendant) argues canvass was inadequate to ensure knowing waiver.	Wilkins contends canvass lacked complete rights and protections.	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; canvass sufficed under governing precedent.
Was the canvass adequate to establish knowing waiver given rights not enumerated on the form?	Defendant relies on Ouellette to require more detailed rights discussion.	State argues canvass plus context suffices; exhaustive listing not required.	Canvass adequate; no need for exhaustive enumerations.
Did the office conflicts of interest require independent inquiry or render waiver invalid?	Conflict between counsel and state witnesses could affect performance.	Record insufficient to show actual adverse effect; Golding not satisfied.	Record inadequate to review; Golding prong one not met; decline to review.
Does Waiver/Conflict claim trigger heightened duty to monitor jurisdiction after conflicts disclosed?	Trial court should reassess jurisdiction when conflicts become known.	No independent inquiry required given record and prior findings.	Court not obliged to revisit jurisdiction given record inadequacy.

State v. Ouellette, 271 Conn. 740 (Conn. 2004) (constitutional right to probable cause hearing; canvass sufficiency varies by case)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (preserves unpreserved constitutional claims under strict test)
State v. Marino, 190 Conn. 639 (Conn. 1983) (multivariate analysis of knowing/voluntary waivers; reliance on counsel)
State v. Gaines, 257 Conn. 695 (Conn. 2001) (conflict-free representation; duty to inquire when conflict known)
United States v. Carmenate, 544 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2008) (canvass for waiver of jury trial—not constitutionally mandated but encouraged)