State v. Wood, 159 Conn.App. 424

Aaron Wood was convicted in 2009 of risk of injury to a child and sentenced to ten years, suspended after six months, with ten years of probation; he had multiple prior probation violations.
In November 2013 Wood appeared for a violation-of-probation (VOP) hearing represented by public defender Victoria Pells and immediately requested new counsel, alleging poor communication, strategic disagreement, and that Pells lied to her supervisor about a threat.
The court questioned Pells, who said she had prepared the case, had communicated with Wood in jail and court, and declined to file an affidavit Wood wanted because she believed it would harm his case. The court denied the substitution request.
Wood repeatedly interrupted the proceeding (including singing) after being warned the hearing would proceed if he continued; the court recessed, instructed defense counsel to inform him he could return if nondisruptive, and then found he would not return.
The court concluded Wood waived his right to be present, proceeded in his absence, found he violated probation (uncharged admissions and positive drug test), revoked probation, and imposed the maximum 75-month sentence. Wood appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wood)	Held
Denial of request for new counsel	Court properly exercised discretion after adequate inquiry; no exceptional circumstances or conflict warranting substitution	Trial counsel ineffective/conflicted due to alleged lie/threat and poor communication; court should have appointed new counsel or continued hearing	Court did not abuse its discretion; no exceptional circumstances or actual conflict shown; inquiry was adequate; denial affirmed
Proceeding with VOP hearing in defendant's absence	Removal and waiver valid because Wood was warned and continued disruptive; counsel represented him during absence	Wood did not waive right to be present; his refusal to return was to protect right to counsel, not disruptive conduct; court failed to personally inform him of right to return	Court properly inferred waiver from totality of conduct, removal under Practice Book rules was justified, and counsel’s notification satisfied procedural requirements; affirmed

Gentry v. Warden, 167 Conn. 639 (Conn.) (standards for right to counsel in probation revocation proceedings)
State v. Drakeford, 202 Conn. 75 (Conn.) (strategic decisions rest with counsel; differences in trial strategy do not automatically require new counsel)
State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613 (Conn.) (disruptive conduct can forfeit right to be present; trial court has broad discretion to remove disruptive defendant)
State v. Turner, 133 Conn. App. 812 (Conn. App.) (denial of substitution reviewed for abuse of discretion; no unlimited right to alternate counsel)