State v. Martin

• Decision Date: 23 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 12555,12555
• Citation: 495 A.2d 1028,197 Conn. 17
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Reginald MARTIN.

Page 1028

495 A.2d 1028

197 Conn. 17

STATE of Connecticut v. Reginald MARTIN.

No. 12555.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 7, 1985.

Decided July 23, 1985.

Laurence S. Hopkins, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

Robert A. Lacobelle, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before PETERS, C.J., and ARTHUR H. HEALEY, SHEA, DANNEHY and SANTANIELLO, JJ.

SHEA, Associate Justice.

On May 9, 1984, the defendant entered a written plea of nolo contendere to the charge of larceny in the first degree as defined in General Statutes §§ 53a-119 ¹ and 53a-122(a)(3). ² The plea was accepted by the court, Melville, J., and, following the defendant's waiver of his right to a presentence investigation report, he was sentenced, pursuant to an earlier plea bargain, to a term of five years in prison, suspended after three years, with one year of probation. On May 24, 1984, however, more than two weeks after he had been sentenced, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his earlier plea of nolo contendere. The motion was denied by the court on May 30, 1984. The defendant has appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere because the state's failure to provide exculpatory evidence nullified the voluntary and intelligent character of his plea. ³ We find no error in the trial court's ruling.

On June 20, 1983, at approximately 3:40 a.m., an employee at the Stratford transfer station arrived at work and discovered that two Mack trucks, each valued at $27,500, had been stolen. The Stratford police were immediately notified and given a description of each vehicle. Later, at approximately 6:30 a.m., the Stratford police were informed by the state police that trooper Joseph Froehlich and another trooper had stopped these vehicles at approximately 12:35 a.m. and had issued summonses for equipment violations to the operators. The operator of one of the trucks identified himself with a New Jersey operator's license as the defendant, Reginald Martin, residing at 782 Ocean Avenue, Jersey City, New Jersey.

On June 21, 1983, the Stratford police obtained a "mugshot" of the defendant from the Jersey City police department. On June 27, 1983, trooper Froehlich was shown a photographic array containing nine color photographs of black males. He "immediately and without hesitation" selected the defendant's photograph as depicting the truck operator who had earlier identified himself as Reginald Martin, and to whom he had issued a summons. The defendant was arrested in New Jersey on a fugitive from justice warrant and subsequently waived extradition to Connecticut.

On September 22, 1983, the defendant, through counsel, filed a discovery motion which, inter alia, contained a general request for disclosure of exculpatory information or materials, citing General Statutes § 54-86c, Practice Book § 741(1), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). This motion was granted by the court. After an arrest warrant for an alleged coparticipant in the truck thefts had been vacated because of a claimed incorrect police identification, the defendant filed a motion for supplemental disclosure to discover whether trooper Froehlich had also identified the suspect who had been erroneously charged. This motion was denied without prejudice to its renewal at time of trial. The same ruling was made concerning the defendant's motion to suppress Froehlich's photographic identification of him. ⁴ Following denial of the defendant's pro se motion to dismiss this case based on the state's failure to disclose the previously requested information concerning Froehlich, the defendant entered his plea of nolo contendere. This plea was accepted after the court properly canvassed the defendant pursuant to Practice Book § 711. ⁵

We begin our analysis with Practice Book § 720, ⁶ which specifically prohibits the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere ⁷ "after the conclusion of the proceeding at which the sentence was imposed." Practice Book § 720; State v. Kiss, 3 Conn.App. 400, 488 A.2d 845 (1985). This section, restricting the authority of a court to permit withdrawal of a plea, is applicable to the defendant's May 24, 1984 motion to withdraw, which was filed fifteen days after the proceeding at which he was sentenced. ⁸

In spite of Practice Book § 720, the defendant asserts that our case law establishes an exception that permits a postsentencing attack on the "voluntary and intelligent character of his plea" and allows withdrawal thereof if constitutional standards were not met when the court accepted the plea. We do not agree that the cases cited support the defendant's attempt to withdraw his plea in this case.

This court in State v. Childree, 189 Conn. 114, 454 A.2d 1274 (1983), allowed a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea after sentence had been imposed. In Childree, the defendant pleaded guilty to, inter alia, larceny in the first degree. Id., 115, 454 A.2d 1274. Because the court failed to apprise the defendant of an element critical to the larceny offense and the record did not indicate that the defendant's counsel had adequately explained the larceny charge to him, however, we held that his plea was not "knowingly and voluntarily" made, in the sense that it did not constitute an intelligent admission that he had received " 'real notice of the true nature of the charge against him, the first and most universally recognized requirement of due process.' " Id., 121, 454 A.2d 1274, quoting Smith v. O'Grady, 312 U.S. 329, 334, 61 S.Ct. 572, 574, 85 L.Ed. 859 (1941); Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 2257, 49 L.Ed.2d 108 (1976).

The defendant also relies on State v. Anonymous (1980-9), 36 Conn.Sup. 578, 421 A.2d 557 (1980), in which the Appellate Session of the Superior Court allowed the postsentencing withdrawal of a guilty plea that the trial court had accepted without explaining to the defendant that his plea operated as a waiver of his right to trial by jury and his right to confront witnesses. Again, as in Childree, it was clear from the record that the trial court had failed to advise the defendant that his plea constituted a waiver of some of his constitutionally protected rights. It was also significant in Anonymous that the state neither contested the fact that the taking of the plea was defective, nor objected to the defendant's postsentencing withdrawal. Id., 579, 421 A.2d 557.

In both Childree and Anonymous a defendant was allowed to withdraw his plea after sentence had been imposed. Superficially these cases appear to conflict with Practice Book § 720. In each case, however it was clear on the record that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated by an improper canvass and a failure to advise the defendant of the consequences of his plea.

The acceptance of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is governed by federal constitutional standards as well as state rules of practice. "Several federal constitutional rights are involved in a waiver that takes place when a plea of guilty is entered in a state criminal trial. First, is the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination ... [s]econd, is the right to trial by jury ... [t]hird, is the right to confront one's accusers." Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). Further, under the Connecticut rules of practice, a trial judge must not accept a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is voluntarily made under Practice Book § 712 ⁹ and that the defendant fully understands the items enumerated in Practice Book § 711. State v. Godek, 182 Conn. 353, 357, 438 A.2d 114 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1031, 101 S.Ct. 1741, 68 L.Ed.2d 226 (1981); State v. Battle, 170 Conn. 469, 473, 365 A.2d 1100 (1976); State v. Bugbee, 161 Conn. 531, 533, 290 A.2d 332 (1971). The record clearly indicates that the defendant, Reginald Martin, was properly canvassed ¹⁰ and completely understood his waiver of constitutional rights. ¹¹

The defendant does not claim that the trial court failed to comply substantially with the provisions of Practice Book § 711 or that the record fails to satisfy constitutional requirements for the acceptance of his plea. See Boykin v. Alabama, supra, 395 U.S. at 243, 89 S.Ct. at 1712. Indeed, he concedes that the canvass was proper. The defendant indicated that he had discussed his plea with his attorney and understood its ramifications. He was aware that a plea of nolo contendere was tantamount to a plea of guilty, and was cognizant of the agreed upon sentencing recommendation, which the court ultimately followed. Upon inquiry, the defendant's counsel said he knew of no reason why the court should not accept the plea. The trial court properly ruled, at the close of the canvass, that the defendant's plea was voluntary, made with full knowledge of the consequences and made with effective assistance of counsel.

It is in this fashion that Childree and Anonymous differ from the instant case. The records in those cases evidenced a clear constitutional deficiency in the trial court's acceptance of the plea. The defendant in this case merely raises an unsubstantiated claim that another suspect in the crime was misidentified by the same police officer who identified the defendant. He contends that the disclosure of such misidentification by the police officer who had identified him not only would be exculpatory, but would negate the voluntary nature of his plea.

It is important to note that the defendant could have acquired this claimed exculpatory evidence had he pursued his earlier motions for disclosure of this information and to suppress trooper Froehlich's identification of him. He chose, however, not to pursue these avenues and instead entered a plea of nolo contendere. The...