State v. Alvarez
| Decision Date | 23 May 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 26478.,26478. |
| Citation | 95 Conn.App. 539,897 A.2d 669 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Eric ALVAREZ. |
Katherine C. Essington, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Jessica Probolus, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Scott J. Murphy, state's attorney, and Brian Preleski, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
FLYNN, C.J., and SCHALLER and GRUENDEL, Js.
The defendant, Eric Alvarez, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of robbery in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-136 and larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124(a)(2). After a jury trial on a part B information that same day, the defendant also was found guilty of committing an offense while on release in violation of General Statutes § 53a-40b. He received a total effective sentence of thirty years incarceration, execution suspended after sixteen years, and five years probation. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court failed to question him adequately concerning his dissatisfaction with his attorney, which led to the court's failure to appoint substitute counsel, and (2) the prosecutor committed several instances of misconduct, depriving the defendant of due process and a fair trial. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On September 5, 2003, the defendant entered J. Roberts Jewelers in Bristol and informed Clayton Roberts, one of the owners of the store, that he was interested in purchasing something for his girlfriend. After being shown several rings, the defendant grabbed a five diamond wedding ring, worth $1400, and ran out of the store.1 Roberts chased him for several blocks, but gave up the chase when he thought he saw the defendant remove a knife from his pocket. Later that day, the defendant sold the ring for some heroin. On September 12, 2003, Roberts picked out the defendant's photograph from an array shown to him by a detective from the Bristol police department. The defendant was arrested and brought to trial. He testified on his own behalf, admitting that he had stolen the ring to support his heroin addiction. He denied possessing a knife, however. Following his conviction, the defendant filed the present appeal. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
On appeal, the defendant first claims that the court abused its discretion in the manner in which it responded to his complaints concerning his attorney. The defendant argues that the court should have questioned him further when he displayed some dissatisfaction with his appointed counsel. Additionally, he argues that the court should have appointed substitute counsel. We disagree.
Our standard of review concerning the court's obligation to conduct an inquiry into the defendant's request for new counsel is the abuse of discretion standard. State v. Hansen, 39 Conn.App. 384, 399, 666 A.2d 421, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 928, 667 A.2d 554 (1995). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Binnette, 86 Conn.App. 491 503-504, 861 A.2d 1197 (2004), cert. denied, 273 Conn. 902, 868 A.2d 745 (2005). Additionally, "[a] trial court does not abuse its discretion by failing to make further inquiry where the defendant has already had an adequate opportunity to inform the trial court of his complaints." State v. Hansen, supra, at 399, 666 A.2d 421.
On August 6, 2004, just prior to beginning jury selection, the defendant requested to address the court. The following colloquy occurred:
The defendant offered no further comments or concerns regarding any dissatisfaction with his attorney or the desire to have substitute counsel appointed on his behalf.
Relying on United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1211, 108 S.Ct. 2858, 101 L.Ed.2d 895 (1988), the defendant argues that "[i]n evaluating whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for substitution of counsel, an appellate court should consider the following factors: [t]he timeliness of the motion; the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint; and whether the attorney-client conflict was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication and prevented an adequate defense." Although it is not clear that the defendant requested or truly wanted substitute counsel when he addressed the court, even if we employ the factors requested by the defendant, we arrive at the conclusion that the court did not abuse its discretion when responding to the defendant's concerns regarding his attorney or any purported motion to substitute counsel.
First, the defendant asked to address the court just prior to the start of jury selection, and he stated that he had some reservations concerning appointed counsel. Even if we assume that the defendant was requesting substitute counsel, the timing of this request was the eve of trial. "[C]ourts repeatedly have held that the proper administration of justice requires that . . . last-minute requests for change of counsel, absent some showing of great need, should be refused." State v. Beaulieu, 164 Conn. 620, 627, 325 A.2d 263 (1973).
Second, the record indicates that the court inquired into the defendant's complaint with regard to his counsel and specifically told the defendant that he could speak again after the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mark T.
...tend to modify any conclusion or inference resulting from the facts so stated." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alvarez , 95 Conn. App. 539, 552, 897 A.2d 669, cert. denied, 279 Conn. 910, 902 A.2d 1069 (2006). This rule of evidence "recognizes the discretion afforded the trial......
-
State v. Santiago
...it is not his right, to stigmatize a defendant”), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192, 105 S.Ct. 967, 83 L.Ed.2d 971 (1985); State v. Alvarez, 95 Conn.App. 539, 551, 897 A.2d 669 (prosecutor's reference to defendant as “ ‘junkie’ ” was improper appeal to emotions of jury because term is pejorative,......
-
State v. Pascal
...trial and, indeed, the version of events advanced by the defendant are consistent with this definition. See generally State v. Alvarez, 95 Conn. App. 539, 553, 897 A.2d 669, cert. denied, 279 Conn. 910, 902 A.2d 1069 (2006). Accordingly, the defendant has failed to demonstrate how the prose......
-
State v. Santiago
...is not his right, to stigmatize a defendant''), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192, 105 S. Ct. 967, 83 L. Ed. 2d 971 (1985); State v. Alvarez, 95 Conn. App. 539, 551, 897 A.2d 669 (prosecutor's reference to defendant as '' 'junkie' '' was improper appeal to emotions of jury because term is pejorat......
-
Witness
...because they related to defendant’s Christianity that defendant heavily emphasized in his direct testimony. CONNECTICUT State v. Alvarez , 897 A.2d 669, 677-78 (Conn. App. 2006). Although cross-examination is limited to the subject matter of the direct examination, the cross-examiner may el......
-
Developments in Connecticut Criminal Law: 2006
...to defendant as a "killer" not improper in context; use of audiovisual evidence in rebuttal summation not improper); State v. Alvarez, 95 Conn. App. 539, 550-55, cert. denied, 279 Conn. 910 (2006) (per Williams factors calling defendant "junkie" was improper but not violation of right to fa......