State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 08 December 1987
• Docket Number: No. 13063,13063
• Citation: 205 Conn. 456,534 A.2d 230
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Michael D. WILLIAMS.

Page 230

534 A.2d 230

205 Conn. 456

STATE of Connecticut v. Michael D. WILLIAMS.

No. 13063.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued Sept. 30, 1987.

Decided Dec. 8, 1987.

Temmy Ann Pieszak, Asst. Public Defender, with whom, on the brief, was Joette Katz, Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).

Mitchell Brody, Deputy Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Edward Ricciardi, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).

Before PETERS, C.J., and SHEA, CALLAHAN, COVELLO and HULL, JJ.

PETERS, Chief Justice.

The principal issues on this appeal are the validity of the defendant's waiver of a trial by jury and the constitutionality of General Statutes § 53a-167a, ¹ which proscribes interfering with a police officer. The trial court found the defendant, Michael D. Williams, guilty on both counts of a substitute information charging him with burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102 ² and interfering with an officer by resisting arrest in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a. He appeals from the ensuing judgment sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of seven years and four months followed by three years of probation. We find no reversible error.

The trial court could reasonably have found the following facts: On March 24, 1984, between 8:30 and 9:30 p.m., the defendant entered a house in Waterbury where the victim was visiting with friends. The defendant was looking for a buyer for his tape player, for which he wanted $40. The victim agreed to buy the tape player and asked the defendant to accompany her to her home on North Main Street to get the money. Upon arrival, while the defendant was in the bathroom, the victim got the money from her bedroom, where it had been hidden under a mattress. After receiving the money in exchange for the tape player, the defendant departed.

Between 3:30 and 4 a.m. the following morning, the victim was woken by the sound of scraping metal and, from her bed saw an individual leaning over the table in her partially illuminated kitchen. When she screamed, the intruder turned to face her. She observed a black man wearing a blue jacket, gray pants, a lightly colored hat and sunshades. The victim called the police and gave them a description of the intruder. When the police arrived, they discovered the kitchen door open, and its lock on the floor along with wooden splinters.

In response to this burglary, the police broadcast a description of the intruder's race, height and clothing. Having heard the broadcast, Patrolmen Nicholas Giordano and Renzo Anzalone stopped the defendant on East Farm Street because he appeared to match the description. Giordano so informed the defendant, told him he could not leave, and asked him to wait in the police car until another officer arrived for a further identification. The defendant refused to comply with Giordano's request. Increasingly "out of control," he started to swear at the police officers and, in a crescendo, to protest his detention. Observing that the noise had attracted onlookers, the patrolmen decided that the defendant was causing a disturbance and arrested him for breach of the peace. Following standard police procedures, they attempted to handcuff the defendant but he had become "totally out of control" and had to be forcibly "subdued."

Having been notified of the defendant's detention, Patrolman Douglas Moran, who had gone to the victim's house in response to her call, brought her to East Farm Street where she identified the defendant as the intruder. Although the victim did not immediately recognize the defendant as the man who had sold her the tape player, she called the police later that day to apprise them of that fact.

On this basis, the trial court concluded that the defendant had been proven guilty of burglary in the second degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102(a), because the defendant had entered the victim's house, during the night, with the intention of committing a crime therein. In view of the police officers' testimony that the defendant "had to be subdued when he learned that someone was on the way," the court also found the defendant guilty of interfering with an officer by resisting arrest in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a(a).

On appeal from the judgment against him, the defendant has raised seven claims of error. He claims that the trial court erred in: (1) accepting his waiver of a jury trial under the original information; (2) not giving him the opportunity to reconsider his waiver of a jury trial with regard to a substitute information charging him with second degree burglary; (3) convicting him of interfering with an officer under General Statutes § 53a-167a, which is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (4) finding sufficient evidence of physical resistance to convict under General Statutes § 53a-167a; (5) admitting out-of-court and in-court identifications, with respect to the burglary, that were the fruit of his illegal arrest for breach of the peace; (6) convicting him of a violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a despite his allegation that his resistance to the illegal arrest was justified; and (7) sentencing him without a continuance to permit inquiry into a delayed presentence investigation report and in reliance on inaccurate information. We find no reversible error.

I

Before reaching the merits of the defendant's claims of error, we must address the state's contention that the defendant failed to raise most of these claims in a timely fashion at his trial. The defendant acknowledges this procedural infirmity with regard to his claims regarding the validity of his waiver of a jury trial, the constitutionality of General Statutes § 53a-167a, the admissibility of the identifications as the fruit of an illegal arrest for breach of the peace, and the improper reliance on inaccurate information at sentencing.

While we ordinarily need not review issues raised for the first time on appeal, we have long held that appellate consideration is proper for claims that implicate fundamental constitutional rights and a fair trial, and are adequately supported by the record. State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70, 327 A.2d 576 (1973). The state concedes that the issues belatedly raised by the defendant facially implicate rights guaranteed by the sixth, first, fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution as well as article first, §§ 8, 19, 15, and 7 of the Connecticut constitution. These issues therefore merit appellate review to determine whether the defendant's constitutional rights have been violated. See, e.g., State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 563, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986) (reviewing the admissibility of statements that were arguably the fruit of an illegal arrest); State v. Marino, 190 Conn. 639, 642, 462 A.2d 1021 (1983) (reviewing the validity of a waiver of the right to a jury trial).

II

The defendant has raised two claims of error challenging the validity of his waiver of his constitutional right to a jury trial. His first claim is that the trial court erred in concluding that he had knowingly and intelligently elected a court trial in response to the original information charging him with first degree burglary and interfering with an officer by resisting arrest. His second claim is that he was denied the right to a jury trial on the substituted charge of burglary in the second degree. Neither of these claims was raised at trial. We find no error.

The principles that govern waiver of a right to a jury trial are not in dispute. "The right to a jury trial in a criminal case is among those constitutional rights which are related to the procedure for the determination of guilt or innocence. The standard for an effective waiver of such a right is that it must be 'knowing and intelligent,' as well as voluntary. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 237, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2052, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Patton v. United States, 281 U.S. 276, 312, 50 S.Ct. 253, 263, 74 L.Ed. 854 (1930)." State v. Marino, supra, 190 Conn. at 643, 462 A.2d 1021; see State v. Shockley, 188 Conn. 697, 705-707, 453 A.2d 441 (1982). Relying on the standard articulated in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), we have adopted the definition of a valid waiver of a constitutional right as the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. State v. Shockley, supra, 188 Conn. at 706, 453 A.2d 441; State v. Reed, 174 Conn. 287, 293, 386 A.2d 243 (1978). This strict standard precludes a court from presuming a waiver of the right to a trial by jury from a silent record. State v. Shockley, supra, 188 Conn. at 707, 453 A.2d 441; see Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1712, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In determining whether this strict standard has been met, a court must inquire into the totality of the circumstances of each case. State v. Shockley, supra; see Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 278, 63 S.Ct. 236, 241, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942). When such a claim is first raised on appeal, our focus is on compliance with these constitutional requirements rather than on observance of analogous procedural rules prescribed by statute or by the Practice Book. General Statutes § 54-82b; Practice Book §§ 839, 4185; State v. Marino, supra; State v. Shockley, supra, 188 Conn. at 713, 453 A.2d 441.

Applying these principles in this case, we note, with respect to the propriety of the defendant's initial waiver of his right to a jury trial, that the record discloses an extensive colloquy between the trial court and the defendant. At a pretrial hearing, the defendant informed the court that he wished to withdraw an earlier election of a jury trial and to have a court trial instead. When the defendant gave his desire for an early trial as his reason for his change of election, the court refused to accede to this request. The court explained to the defendant that he was entitled to a...