Banks v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 15 July 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 15353,15353 |
| Citation | 241 Conn. 569,698 A.2d 268 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | Duane BANKS v. James E. THOMAS, State's Attorney. |
Suzanne Zitser, Assistant Public Defender, for plaintiff in error.
Harry Weller, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, State's Attorney, and Edward Narus, Assistant State's Attorney, for defendant in error.
Before BORDEN, BERDON, PALMER, McDONALD and DUPONT, JJ.
This case is before us on a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error, Duane Banks (plaintiff), who seeks reversal of the judgment of the trial court summarily finding him in criminal contempt of court on three separate occasions during a hearing on his application for a bail reduction. 1 The trial court sentenced the plaintiff to consecutive prison terms of three months on each contempt finding. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly: (1) determined that his conduct was contemptuous; (2) failed to disqualify itself and refer the charges to another judge for adjudication; and (3) proceeded against him in a summary, rather than a nonsummary, manner. The defendant in error, James E. Thomas, 2 contends that the writ must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it was not filed within the time period specified by General Statutes § 52-273 and Practice Book § 4144. 3 We reject the state's contention that the writ must be dismissed and, upon review of the merits of the plaintiff's claims, we affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the first contempt finding and reverse the judgment as to the second and third findings.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. On May 2, 1995, the plaintiff was charged with robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree. 4 Bail was set initially at $500,000, and the plaintiff, who was unable to post bail, was incarcerated pending trial. On June 7, 1995, the trial court, Espinosa, J., reduced the plaintiff's bail to $300,000. Due to his inability to satisfy the reduced bail, however, the plaintiff remained incarcerated.
On November 17, 1995, the plaintiff filed a motion for a further bail reduction, which was heard by Judge Espinosa on November 29, 1995. 5 At the hearing, the plaintiff's attorney, Margaret Levy, sought to have the plaintiff's bail reduced to $35,000. 6 Levy argued in support of the proposed reduction that: (1) the plaintiff had been incarcerated in lieu of bond since his arrest on the robbery and assault charges more than seven months earlier; (2) the plaintiff's family, which resided in Hartford, would be able to post a $35,000 full surety bond; (3) if released, the plaintiff was welcome to return to the home of his girlfriend, with whom he had been living at the time of his arrest; (4) the plaintiff was willing to wear an electronic monitoring device that would alert the authorities in the event that he attempted to leave the area; (5) the plaintiff planned to seek employment through an employment agency that previously had placed him in various temporary jobs; and (6) contrary to information that might have been provided to the court in connection with a previous bail hearing, there were no outstanding parole violation charges pending against him.
The state opposed the proposed reduction, asserting that the plaintiff had a prior conviction for escape and two prior convictions for failure to appear and, in addition, that he had been adjudicated in violation of probation twice. The state further argued that: the plaintiff had given a written confession regarding his involvement in the robbery; he had implicated two accomplices in the offense; and one of the robbery victims had been shot and seriously wounded by an accomplice. The state maintained that a further reduction of the plaintiff's bail would be inappropriate in light of the strength of the case against the plaintiff, the seriousness of the charges, the plaintiff's prior record, and the likelihood that the plaintiff would receive a substantial prison term if convicted. The plaintiff's attorney responded that: the plaintiff planned to contest the validity of the alleged confessions at a later date; although the state's documents indicated that the plaintiff had two failure to appear convictions, in fact he had only one such conviction; and the proposed $35,000 full surety bond, coupled with the condition that he wear an electronic monitoring device, was sufficient to ensure the plaintiff's presence in court. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion without elaboration.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Redding Life Care, LLC v. Town of Redding
...jurisdiction of the Appellate Court and of this court is governed by statute." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Banks v. Thomas , 241 Conn. 569, 582, 698 A.2d 268 (1997) ; see also State v. Curcio , 191 Conn. 27, 30, 463 A.2d 566 (1983) ("The right of appeal is purely statutory. It is ac......
-
Williams v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities
...jurisdiction, and we require a strong showing of legislative intent that such a time limit is jurisdictional. See Banks v. Thomas, 241 Conn. 569, 582-83, 698 A.2d 268 (1997). We have found, through a review of cases in this court that have dealt with jurisdiction in recent years, inconsiste......
-
Rowe v. Superior Court, No. 17718.
...Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968). ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Banks v. Thomas, 241 Conn. 569, 590, 698 A.2d 268 (1997). Accordingly, this long has recognized that "[p]roceedings for the punishment of contempts should generally conform a......
-
State v. Reid, No. 17554.
...W. Maltbie, Connecticut Appellate Procedure (2d Ed.1957) § 275, p. 352." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Banks v. Thomas, 241 Conn. 569, 586 n. 18, 698 A.2d 268 (1997). Thus, this court would have jurisdiction to consider an untimely appeal by the We are convinced that, under the unique......
-
Significant Developments in Criminal Law 1996-1997
...which ought to be reviewed by the court having jurisdiction and the judge so certifies." 89. 230 Conn. 608, 646 A.2d 126 (1994) 90. 241 Conn. 569, 698 A.2d 268 91. Iovieno, supra note 87 at 700. 92. Id. at 702-8. There is no federal constitutional right to counsel in habeas corpus proceedin......