Connecticut Court Bars Sex Offender from Withdrawing Guilty Plea

For a free consultation with an experienced criminal defense attorney, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Before he was sentenced for allegedly sexually abusing a minor, a defendant tried to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel.

Hartford Superior Court Judge Julia Dewey refused to let the man do so. The defendant, identified only as “Anthony D. Sr.” in court documents, claimed the trial judge had an obligation to determine why he was unhappy with his lawyer before denying his request.

But the Appellate Court upheld Dewey’s decision. And so did the state Supreme Court, though justices split 4-3 on the question.

“We conclude that the Appellate Court properly determined that the defendant was not entitled to a further inquiry into the basis of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea under the facts of the present case,” Justice Dennis Eveleigh wrote for the majority opinion.

Justices Richard Palmer, Peter Zarella and Carmen Espinosa concurred. In a minority opinion, Chief Justice Chase Rogers, Andrew McDonald and Richard Robinson dissented, concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion without further inquiry.

Attorney Alan Jay Black of Northhampton, Massachusetts, who represents Anthony D. on appeal, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The Division of Criminal Justice represented the state. Mark Dupuis, a spokesman for the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney, declined to comment on the decision.

Anthony D. faced multiple criminal counts related to the alleged sexual abuse of his girlfriend’s child. He had been living in the same residence with the child for years. A trial started in December 2011, and the state called the alleged victim, then age 15, as a witness. The teen testified that the defendant had sexually abused her from the time she was 6 years old, court documents show.

When the court denied the defense’s motion to suppress Anthony’s confession to police, he decided to plead out under the Alford doctrine, which allows a defendant to maintain his innocence while agreeing the prosecution has enough evidence to convict him. Under an agreement, he was to get 10 years of incarceration followed by 10 years of special parole.

Anthony D. entered the plea in early December 2011. According to the Supreme Court decision, the judge questioned him, asking if he understood the plea agreement, if he understood the nature of an Alford plea, and if he agreed it was likely he would be convicted if he completed his trial. The judge explained his rights, the charge, and sex offender registration and treatment requirements, the decision notes.

Anthony D. acknowledged understanding everything, though he at one point offered an “inaudible response,” according to court documents, which prompted the judge to ask him if he had questions for his attorney. The defendant responded by saying, “Nothing that I ask is gonna change anything.” He later said he didn’t have any questions about what was happening, according to the majority decision. “The court proceeded to accept the plea and to explain to the defendant that the agreement was binding and that the defendant could not come back and change his mind,” Eveleigh wrote.

Shortly afterward, on Dec. 16, the defendant returned for sentencing, and asked to withdraw his plea. The judge denied the motion, indicating that if the defendant wanted to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, he could do so in a habeas proceeding. The court proceeded with the sentencing.

In his appeal, Anthony D. claimed the trial court’s failure to conduct an inquiry into the factual basis of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea “violated his constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel and to due process of law,” the Supreme Court decision notes.

Assistant State’s Attorney Kathryn Bare, who represented the state in the appeal, claimed Anthony D. failed to state a specific basis for his motion, and she asserted the judge properly disregarded his counsel’s vague statement that he had “concerns” about his legal representation. The Supreme Court majority agreed with the prosecutor.

According to the majority opinion, there is no language in the Practice Book which imposes an affirmative duty on the court to conduct an inquiry into the basis of a defendant’s motion to withdraw a guilty plea. Instead, the defendant “bears the burden to present facts sufficient to persuade the trial court that his guilty plea should be withdrawn,” the majority wrote. “At no point during the proceedings did the defendant or his counsel cite facts or present evidence as to how or why counsel’s representation was allegedly ineffective.”

The majority concluded the defense had an opportunity to raise such issues, but didn’t. Anthony D.’s trial attorney is not identified in the decision.

“At no point in the proceedings did the trial court cut short the defendant’s explanation of the basis of his motion or direct him to stop talking,” the majority decision states.

Requiring a judge to inquire into the factual basis of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, when the defendant doesn’t present specific facts, would “do violence to the reasonable administrative needs of a busy trial court,” the majority wrote. The justices asserted it would also provide defendants with incentive to “make vague assertions of an invalid plea in hopes of delaying their sentencing.”

But in the dissent, Rogers wrote that the trial court denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea “summarily, without conducting any inquiry into the specific allegations regarding his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”

Rogers noted such a motion typically will rest on an attorney’s advice or performance outside the courtroom, so any factual basis would not be readily available in the court record. “In the present case, the trial court denied the defendant’s motion without giving the defendant an opportunity to assert any allegations of fact, relying instead on its recollection of the plea proceeding,” the minority opinion states.

The dissenting justices asserted Anthony D. should have been given an opportunity to present allegations of fact to support his motion. According to Rogers, an appropriate remedy would have been to remand the case for further inquiry.

Maya Murphy P.C. has the resources and expertise to offer you the best possible representation throughout the criminal process. If you are facing criminal charges or wish to appeal your case, please call the offices of Maya Murphy, P.C. today at (203) 221-3100 or Joseph C. Maya, Esq. at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Source: CT Law Tribune