State v. Deboben
| Decision Date | 29 June 1982 |
| Citation | 446 A.2d 828,187 Conn. 469 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Donald K. DEBOBEN. |
Wayne A. Baker, Danbury, for appellant (defendant).
Richard D. Arconti, Deputy Asst. State's Atty. with whom, on the brief, was Walter D. Flanagan, State's Atty., for appellee (State).
Before SPEZIALE, C. J., and PETERS, PARSKEY, ARMENTANO and SHEA, JJ.
The defendant entered a plea of guilty to a substitute information charging him with the crime of illegal possession of narcotics with intent to sell. The trial court, upon inquiry, found that the plea was made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently and that there was a factual basis for it. It thereupon entered a finding of guilty to the crime charged. Thereafter on the day of sentencing the defendant orally moved to withdraw his plea. The court denied the motion and imposed the recommended sentence from which judgment the defendant has appealed.
The defendant and a co-defendant, Ernesto Luis, had been charged with illegal possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell, by a non-drug dependent person, in violation of General Statutes § 19-480a(b). This statute carries a mandatory nonsuspendable minimum sentence of five years. On December 9, 1980, after jury selection and pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant and his co-defendant 1 entered pleas of guilty to a substituted information charging them with possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 19-480(a). This statute contains a maximum sentence of fifteen years but no mandatory minimum. In the defendant's case the state agreed to recommend, and the court later imposed, a sentence to the correctional institution at Cheshire for an indefinite period not to exceed five years.
At the time of the plea, the assistant state's attorney told the court that on March 28, 1980, the Danbury police executed a search and seizure warrant at the residence of the co-defendant Luis, that Luis and the defendant were in a bedroom behind a closed door, that the defendant was observed sitting on the bed with a knife cutting on a mirror a white substance later determined to be three grams of cocaine, that a mixing substance known as mannitol was next to the cocaine, that the bedroom contained various drug paraphernalia including scales and packaging materials, that known drug users were observed elsewhere in the apartment and that while the police were present the phone rang twice and the callers told the detective who answered that they wanted to talk to Ernesto and to "cop some snow" (meaning cocaine).
The court then explained the elements and penalties of the offense to the defendant. With respect to the elements of possession the court explained the concepts of actual and constructive possession and related these concepts to the facts it had just heard. With regard to the element of intent to sell the court explained to the defendant that his actual possession of the cocaine, his cutting of it and the presence of packaging devices in the area were evidence of intent to sell. After having explained the elements the court observed that unless all of these elements, viz., knowing possession, narcotic substance, and intent to sell, are present the statute is not violated, and that if during its inquiry the court determined that one of these elements was missing, it would not accept the plea.
The court further explained to the defendant his various constitutional rights, including his right to a jury, to a speedy and public trial, to remain silent, to confront the witnesses against him and to the presumption of innocence. Upon specific inquiry by the court the defendant responded that he understood the elements of the crime charged. When asked whether he had any questions about the elements of the crime charged, he responded, "No." When asked whether he understood that by pleading guilty he was admitting all of the elements of the crime charged and was giving up his constitutional rights as previously explained, he responded, "Yes."
Thereafter, the court inquired as to the voluntariness of the plea. In response to the court's questions, the defendant stated that he had not been promised anything or threatened with anything in order to get him to enter the plea, that he had discussed the plea in great detail with his attorney, that he had considered his attorney's advice as well as his own good judgment and the advice of other people before entering his plea and that he was satisfied with his attorney's services.
The court concluded its canvass of the plea by asking the defendant to tell what he did in his own words. The defendant told the court that he was sitting in Luis' bedroom, holding the bag of marijuana. He then was asked about the cocaine. At first, he stated that he had "nothing to do with it," but later stated that it was next to him and that he knew what it was. When the court inquired if he knew it was going to be sold he initially responded that he didn't have any idea what was going to be done with it. The defendant then conferred with his lawyer and shortly thereafter when asked by the court what he and Luis were going to do with the cocaine, answered, "Sell it." The court then repeated, "You were going to sell it."
Upon the conclusion of the canvass the court remarked:
On the day of sentencing the defendant moved to withdraw his plea on the ground that he was confused when he entered the plea and that he said what his attorney 2 told him to say. He did not specify in what respect he was confused nor did he claim that his attorney advised him to answer the court's questions other than honestly and truthfully. Although he claimed that he was not cutting the cocaine when the police walked in the door and that the cocaine did not belong to him, he told the probation officer who prepared the presentence report that he agreed with the police report. At the sentencing hearing he denied that he admitted to the probation officer that he agreed with this report. On appeal the defendant for the first time also raises the question of the factual basis for the guilty plea.
The defendant makes three claims, namely (1) that he was confused; (2) that he was told what to say by his lawyer; and (3) that there was no factual basis for the plea. The allegations of fact contained in the first...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Badgett
...past referred to a defendant's right to be free of compulsory self-incrimination as the right "to remain silent." State v. Deboben, 187 Conn. 469, 471-72, 446 A.2d 828 (1982). In fact, a defendant might better understand his right against compulsory self-incrimination by the use of the term......
-
State v. Johnson
...which are either conclusory, vague or oblique. State v. Torres, supra, 185. Such allegations are discountenanced. State v. Deboben, 187 Conn. 469, 474, 446 A.2d 828 (1982). To warrant consideration, the defendant must allege and provide facts which justify permitting him to withdraw his ple......
-
State v. James
...Torres, 182 Conn. 176, 185, 438 A.2d 46 (1980); see also State v. Lasher, 190 Conn. 259, 265, 460 A.2d 970 (1983); State v. Deboben, 187 Conn. 469, 474, 446 A.2d 828 (1982). One of these grounds is that "[t]he plea was accepted without substantial compliance with Sec. 711." Practice Book § ......
-
State v. Huey
...for a period of not less than two or more than four years." 4 We will consider the claim on the authority of State v. Deboben, 187 Conn. 469, 475 n. 4, 446 A.2d 828 (1982), which states: "Although the establishment of a factual basis for a guilty plea is required by our rules; Practice Book......
-
State v. Golding: a Standardless Standard?
...1195 1985) (Sandstrom claim); State v. Smith, 200 Conn. 465, 475, 512 A-2d 189 (1986) (claime~ involuntary confession); State v. Deboben, 187 Conn. 469, 446 A.2d 828 (1982) (claimed involuntary guilty plea); State v. Morrill, 197 Conn. 507, 521, 498 A.2d 76 (1985) (speedy trial); State v. W......