State v. Gamble

Decision Date22 April 1992
Docket NumberNo. 10132,10132
Citation604 A.2d 366,27 Conn.App. 1
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Derwin GAMBLE.

Kent Drager, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was G. Douglas Nash, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

Paul J. Ferencek, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were John M. Bailey, State's Atty., and Warren Maxwell, Sr. Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before DUPONT, C.J., and NORCOTT and FOTI, JJ.

FOTI, Judge.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the court, following a plea, 1 of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55(a)(1). The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) denied his motion to correct the judgment and the mittimus, (2) characterized his straight guilty plea as one entered under Alford, 2 (3) accepted the plea under Alford without a proper canvassing, (4) accepted the plea without properly explaining the necessary elements, and (5) accepted a plea not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily. We reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.

The facts are not in dispute. The defendant was charged and tried on the crime of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. The court declared a mistrial because of a deadlocked jury. Prior to the commencement of a second trial, the state filed a substitute information charging the defendant with manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55(a)(1). The defendant entered a plea and, following the canvass, the court accepted the plea. On January 25, 1991, the court sentenced the defendant, in compliance with the plea agreement, to a term of twenty years incarceration. On April 5, 1991, the defendant filed this appeal. Following a hearing on June 26, 1991, the court denied the defendant's "Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence Disposition." On July 15, 1991, the defendant filed an amended appeal to include the denial of this motion.

The defendant argues that the trial court should have granted his motion to correct judgment and mittimus, filed pursuant to Practice Book § 935, 3 because he pleaded guilty to first degree manslaughter under only the theory of accessorial liability. 4 We agree.

The record reveals the following as relevant:

"Mr. Graham [Defense Counsel]: May the prior plea of not guilty and jury election be withdrawn?

"The Court: Okay.

"Mr. Maxwell [State's Attorney]: I need the court's permission to file a substitute information.

"The Court: Okay.

"Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Gamble had originally been charged with the crime of murder in violation of 53a-54a. And there has been a plea agreement here. The state's consideration for that agreement is to take the charge and reduce the charge from a murder to a manslaughter in the first degree in violation of 53a-55(a)(1).

"The Court: Okay.

"Mr. Graham: And to make it clear, I've discussed this with Mr. Maxwell. The plea the defendant is entering to this manslaughter charge is as an accessory and Mr. Maxwell is going to present the factual basis on a--whatever he chooses. But what I'm going to submit to the court as a factual basis for what we're entering the plea on is the testimony of Mr. Gamble in the prior trial where he admits to the conduct that he did in this case. And by some stretches of evidence it could be deemed to be an accessory to a manslaughter but not the actual principal actor.

"The Court: Okay.

"Mr. Graham: To save you the burden of reading those many pages, we discussed this in a chambers conference about a week and a half ago. And basically--

"The Court: Well, I recall the facts. He claims he came out with a gun; he shot the man in the buttocks; the other man took the gun and shot the man and killed him.

"Mr. Graham: That's correct. And that's his testimony. And the original discussions in this case were aimed at a plea to the assault, which he actually confesses to in that statement.

"The Court: Right. The whole issue comes down to [the fact] that he's not admitting that he shot the fatal bullet, but he's pleading to the manslaughter one or the accessory to the manslaughter one to avoid going to trial on the charge of murder and face the risk of being found guilty and getting sixty years in jail. And he acknowledges that there is a probability that he may have gotten convicted. Right?

"Mr. Graham: That's right. Well, a certainty he could be convicted but for an assault first degree on the very facts that he concedes which carries the same penalty as the charge he's pleading to.

"The Clerk: Would the defendant please state his name and date of birth for the record?

"The Defendant: Derwin Gamble, November 24, 1966.

"The Clerk: Derwin Gamble, you've been charged with a substituted information in docket number 14-55491 which has been redesignated CR89-364468 with the crime of manslaughter in the first degree at the town of Hartford on or about April 23, 1989, in violation of Connecticut General Statute Number 53a-55(a)(1). How do you plead, guilty or not guilty?

"The Defendant: Not guilty for the manslaughter.

"Mr. Graham: It's as an accessory, as I just mentioned to the court.

"The Court: Okay, you're being put to plea as being an accessory to manslaughter in the first degree in violation of 53a-55 subsection one, and I believe, it's 53a-8. Now what's your plea to that charge?

"The Defendant: That's accessory to--

"The Court: Accessory to manslaughter.

"The Defendant: Guilty, sir."

The court then proceeded to canvass the plea of guilty and thereafter:

"The Court: And you've had enough time to talk to your lawyer about this case and your decision to plead guilty?

"The Defendant: Yes, I have.

"The Court: He's explained to you the elements of the offense and the evidence the state would have presented at trial?

"The Defendant: Yes, Your Honor.

"The Court: And you've plead to a Class B felony. You could get twenty years in jail and/or a $10,000 fine. And manslaughter in the first degree, you're guilty of that when with intent to cause a serious physical injury to another person you cause the death of that person. Now wait a minute, I'm not through yet. But you're charged as an accessory which means that you--

"Mr. Maxwell: If Your Honor please, the charge is--may I interrupt the court for a moment? I need the court's permission to do that.

"The Court: Yes.

"Mr. Maxwell: Accessory is merely an alternative means of proving the crime of assault in the first degree. And he--

"The Court: I know that--manslaughter.

"Mr. Maxwell: Manslaughter, excuse me--manslaughter in the first degree. He wants to make his plea consistent with his evidence in the first trial, which I don't object to. But the underlying basis for the plea is as principal. Now, it's a combination of accessoriness or an Alford plea under North Carolina. But the information is [not] going to reflect 53a-8 in the information.

"The Court: And if he's tried as a principal a jury could come back and find him guilty as an accessory?

"Mr. Maxwell: That's correct, sir.

"The Court: And you agree with that also, Mr. Graham?

"Mr. Graham: Yes sir.

"The Court: Okay. So what I'm doing is, I'm saying that to be found guilty, he has you charged as the principal. If the facts came out that you were acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense you aided another person in conduct, which would be the manslaughter one, they would find you guilty of manslaughter one. Even under your version. Do you understand that? No?

"The Defendant: No, I don't.

"The Court: Okay, go see Judge Freed.

"Mr. Graham: I don't think this is a withdrawal of the plea, Judge.

"The Court: Well, no. See, now the problem is he doesn't agree with that. And he's being charged as a principal. He could be convicted as an accessory. Now, for me to canvass him, even under his theory, it would be that he was there aiding someone else who actually committed the killing.

"Mr. Graham: What you asked him though is, do you understand that. And his response to your question, he said, 'No.' But that doesn't mean he doesn't want to continue with this proceeding here.

"The Court: But you understand, Mr. Gamble, that you're charged with manslaughter, okay? And I've already read what manslaughter in the first degree is, what the state would have to prove on that. At trial, if the state proved that you were the one who shot the guy or you were with the person who shot the gun and you intentionally aided the person who shot the gun, they could find you guilty. Do you understand that?

"The Defendant: Of an accessory to manslaughter.

"The Court: Well they would--okay, yes. You got me now?

"The Defendant: Yes, I do. And I plead guilty to the accessory to manslaughter.

"The Court: Okay, so now we're back on track again, okay? Well, you're pleading guilty to manslaughter. I'm just trying to tell you that the state, at the trial, if they prove you shot the gun or with someone who shot the gun and killed the person, the jury could come back and find you guilty, understood?

"The Defendant: Understood.

"The Court: Okay. Is that agreeable to you?

"Mr. Graham: I think I understand.

"The Court: Do you understand that too, so that we're all agreed on this, Mr. Maxwell?

"Mr. Maxwell: Yeah, it's all right with me the way the court put it forth. I don't know if he understood that it's really--under the law an accessory is just as guilty as the principal. There's no difference which one he is.

"Mr. Graham: Yes.

"The Court: You understand that Mr. Gamble?

"The Defendant: Yes.

"Mr. Graham: The choices of words here are very important for reasons that have very little to do with what's happening here.

"The Court: Okay. Whether you aid someone or you do it yourself, it's the same blame, same punishment, understand?

"The Defendant: Yes I do."

The court continued to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Cooper
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 1995
    ...State v. Velez, 30 Conn.App. 9, 20-21, 618 A.2d 1362, cert. denied, 225 Conn. 907, 621 A.2d 289 (1993); see also State v. Gamble, 27 Conn.App. 1, 13, 604 A.2d 366, cert. denied, 222 Conn. 901, 606 A.2d 1329 (1992). If any one of these conditions is not established, the defendant's claim wil......
  • State v. March
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 1995
    ...a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Velez, 30 Conn.App. 9, 20-21, 618 A.2d 1362 (1993); State v. Gamble, 27 Conn.App. 1, 13, 604 A.2d 366, cert. denied, 222 Conn. 901, 606 A.2d 1329 (1992); see also State v. Walker, 33 Conn.App. 763, 768-69, 638 A.2d 1084, cert......
  • State v. Harris, 17046
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • June 23, 1998
    ...682 A.2d 1009 (1996); State v. Bagley, 35 Conn.App. 138, 644 A.2d 386, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913, 648 A.2d 157 (1994); State v. Gamble, 27 Conn.App. 1, 604 A.2d 366, cert. denied, 222 Conn. 901, 606 A.2d 1329 (1992); State v. Spears, 20 Conn.App. 410, 567 A.2d 1245 (1989). These cases sup......
  • State v. Domian
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • August 30, 1994
    ...omitted.) State v. Velez, 30 Conn.App. 9, 20-21, 618 A.2d 1362, cert. denied, 225 Conn. 907, 621 A.2d 289 (1993); State v. Gamble, 27 Conn.App. 1, 13, 604 A.2d 366, cert. denied, 222 Conn. 901, 606 A.2d 1329 (1992); see also State v. Walker, 33 Conn.App. 763, 768-69, 638 A.2d 1084 The first......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT