State v. Woods, 158 Conn.App. 231

Woods was convicted April 25, 2012 of possession of narcotics and failure to appear; total sentence 10 years, suspended after one year, with three years probation.
On June 26, 2013 Woods was released on probation; July 1, 2013 he signed a probation form detailing standard conditions and a special condition for substance abuse evaluation and treatment.
An arrest warrant was issued August 8, 2013 for allegedly failing to report to probation; Woods was arrested and a violation hearing scheduled.
Attorney John Cizik was appointed August 22, 2013; over four months the case was continued multiple times, including a December 17, 2013 rejection of a plea offer and request for a hearing.
On January 24, 2014 the violation of probation hearing occurred; Woods opted to represent himself, the court canvassed him, and then allowed cross-examination with standby counsel; Woods was found in violation and sentenced to seven and a half years.
The judgment was appealed, challenging the trial court’s failure to ensure the waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the waiver of counsel was knowingly and intelligently made.	State argues Woods had knowledge of potential penalties from court statements.	Woods contends he was not advised of the range of punishments and the canvass was inadequate.	Waiver not knowingly and intelligently made; remand for new proceedings.
Whether the court’s canvass complied with Practice Book § 44-3 and constitutional requirements.	Record shows Woods obtained exposure to penalties through prior information.	The canvass did not adequately inform Woods of possible consequences.	Canvass deficient; remand for new violation of probation hearing.
Whether other sources (judicial notice, probation form, or counsel’s motion) adequately informed Woods of punishment exposure.	Judicial notice and form/documentary notices provided notice of exposure.	These sources did not establish awareness of range of punishments at the time of waiver.	Not sufficient to prove knowledge of range of punishments; waiver invalid.

State v. Diaz, 274 Conn. 818 (Conn. 2005) (canvass sufficiency may satisfy knowing waiver requirement)
State v. Connor, 292 Conn. 483 (Conn. 2009) (waiver not knowing if range of penalties undisclosed)
State v. Smith, 18 Conn. App. 368 (Conn. App. 1989) (waiver invalid where range of penalties not understood)
State v. T.R.D., 286 Conn. 191 (Conn. 2008) (two-stage probation revocation; canvass adequacy)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (intentional relinquishment of known right constituting valid waiver")
State v. Gore, 288 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2008) (presumption against waiver of fundamental rights)