State v. Hazel, No. 27732.
Decision Date | 04 March 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 27732. |
Citation | 106 Conn.App. 213,941 A.2d 378 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Michael O. HAZEL. |
Stephanie L. Evans, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Melissa Patterson, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Jason Germain, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
FLYNN, C.J., and DiPENTIMA and ROBINSON, Js.
The defendant, Michael O. Hazel,1 appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a(a) and 53a-49(a)(2), assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59(a)(1), conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-59(a)(1) and 53a-48(a), criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217(a)(1), carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35(a) and criminal possession of a pistol or revolver in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217c(a)(1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) he was denied his constitutional right to be present at a critical stage of his prosecution and (2) his conviction of attempt to commit murder is legally inconsistent with his conviction of assault in the first degree and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. At approximately 2 a.m. on July 6, 2003, the victim, David Rogers, and his brother, Delton Rogers, went to Horace's Market in Waterbury to purchase beer. The victim had a stick in his hand as he entered the store. Walter Williams2 asked if the victim planned to hit him with the stick, which the victim denied. Williams, agitated with the victim, exited the store in a hostile mood. After obtaining the beer, the victim left the store and saw his brother, Williams and a third person, later identified as the defendant, conversing. The victim explained that he had not threatened Williams with the stick. The victim and his brother shook hands with the defendant, while Williams remained unreceptive to the conciliatory efforts. The defendant and Williams then departed.
After a period of time had elapsed, the victim and his brother were walking to the victim's automobile. A motor vehicle driven at a high rate of speed approached them. After it came to a stop, the victim observed Williams and the defendant exit from the vehicle. The victim warned his brother that "they might have guns" as Williams walked toward him. The defendant then pulled a pistol from his waistband and shot the victim several times in the stomach, legs, buttocks and arm.3 The victim heard Williams instruct the defendant also to shoot Delton Rogers, but the defendant focused his attack solely on the victim. The defendant and Williams then drove off. Delton Rogers transported the victim to a hospital.
The defendant subsequently was arrested, tried and convicted. The court sentenced him to a total effective term of twenty years incarceration and five years special parole. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth where necessary.
The defendant first claims that he was denied his constitutional right to be present at a critical stage of his prosecution. Specifically, he argues that it was structural error4 for the court to conduct a hearing in chambers regarding a possible conflict of interest involving defense counsel without his presence. The state counters that the record is inadequate to review this claim. We agree with the state.
The following additional facts are necessary for our discussion. Prior to the empanelment of the jury and the evidentiary phase of the trial, the court, referring to a discussion that had taken place earlier in chambers, stated:
Counsel for the defendant, attorney Michael P. Gannon, then stated: The defendant responded in the affirmative. The court then inquired if the defendant had "any problem with attorney Gannon continuing his representation?" The defendant answered in the negative. The court asked if the defendant believed that there was any type of conflict, and the defendant stated, "[n]o sir."
The court inquired if the prosecutor had any comment regarding this matter. The prosecutor responded: The court then asked if there was anything else that needed to be placed on the record, and defense counsel responded in the negative.
The defendant concedes that this claim is unpreserved and seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 359-60, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845, 126 S.Ct. 94, 163 L.Ed.2d 110 (2005). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kirk R., 271 Conn. 499, 506 n. 12, 857 A.2d 908 (2004).
We now set forth the legal principles germane to the defendant's claim. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Cruz, 41 Conn.App. 809, 811, 678 A.2d 506, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 908, 682 A.2d 1008 (1996); see also State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn.App. 739, 745, 890 A.2d 591, appeal dismissed, 281 Conn. 817, 917 A.2d 959 (2007). Simply put, "[a] defendant's right to be present . . . is scarcely less important to the accused than the right of trial itself." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613, 636, 916 A.2d 17, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 164, 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007).
The defendant argues that the conversation that occurred in chambers constituted a critical stage of the proceedings. In State v. Sam, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bonner, No. 17628.
...a critical stage of the prosecution." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hazel, 106 Conn.App. 213, 220, 941 A.2d 378, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903, 947 A.2d 343 (2008). Applying the test set forth in Lopez to determine whether a particular in......
-
State v. Zapata, No. 30426.
... ... Hazel, 106 Conn.App. 213, 220, 941 A.2d 378, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903, 947 A.2d 343 (2008) ... This court's analysis in McNellis, ... ...
- State v. Chyung
-
Hazel v. Warden
... ... On July ... 14, 2005, in the Waterbury Judicial District, the petitioner ... after jury trial in the matter of State v. Michael ... Hazel , docket number CR03-0322522, was found guilty of: ... attempt to commit murder in violation of Connecticut General ... ...