State of Connecticut v. Justice Marshall Law (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Plea and a memorandum in support.   The defendant represented himself on the motion.¹  The court, Scheinblum, J. denied the motion but vacated the order on September 11, 2013.

II. ISSUES

Does the court have subject matter jurisdiction?   Was defendant's plea involuntary because he indicated during the plea canvass that he was not sure he should take the court's indicated offer?

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On April 13, 2011, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to one count of forgery in the first degree in violation of C.G.S. Section 53a–138.   He also entered pleas of guilty to four counts of larceny in the third degree and one count of larceny in the sixth degree under five docket numbers.   The State's offer was four years to serve.   The court's indicated offer was 40 months to serve and five years special parole.   The court, Scheinblum, J., declined the defendant's request for a 24–month sentence.   After the plea canvass, the court imposed a total effective sentence of 40 months to serve followed by five years special parole.   The defendant waived the presentence investigation report and began serving the sentence on April 13, 2011.

During the plea canvass the following colloquy occurred.

The Court:  Did anybody force you or threaten you in any way to plead guilty?

Defendant:  Well,—basically.

The Court:  Basically what?   I threatened you?   Is that what you are saying?

Defendant:  No, that I will get more time if I took it to trial, so yeah.

The Court:  Well, you've been in the system.   Am I telling you something that isn't true?   You tell me, you think I forced you into pleading guilty?

Defendant:  Well, I had to, I have to plead because—

The Court:  Because why, tell me why.

Defendant:  Because everybody is against me on this, so—

The Court:  Everybody is against you?   We just went through the recitation of facts which you admitted to committing all these crimes.

Defendant:  Right.

The Court:  I just got through telling you that your maximum exposure is 30 years, and now you are trying to tell me I forced you to plead guilty?

Defendant:  I really did not want to, but I had to.

The Court:  Well, let me ask you do you still want to plead guilty?

Defendant:  Yeah.

The Court:  Okay, and do you really feel that I have exercised any undue influence on your decision?

Defendant:  I—I don't know.

The Court:  Yes or no?   It's a simple question.

The Defendant:  No, no.

(Transcript of plea, pp. 15–17, April 13, 2011)

The defendant also claims the police promised him that all of his sentences would run concurrently if he gave a statement about the crimes.   He also claims his lawyer refused to take the cases to trial.   On May 8, 2013, the defendant moved to withdraw his pleas.   Judge Scheinblum later disqualified himself from the case after denying the motion.   On September 11, 2013, Judge Scheinblum vacated his order of May 8th.

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW

“A defendant may withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo contendere as a matter of right until the plea has been accepted.   After acceptance, the judicial authority shall allow the defendant to withdraw his or her plea upon proof of one of the grounds in Section 39–27.   A defendant may not withdraw his or her plea after the conclusion of the proceeding at which the sentence was imposed.”  Connecticut Practice Book Section 39–26.  “The grounds for allowing the defendant to withdraw his or her plea of guilty after acceptance are as follows:  (2) The plea was involuntary, or it was entered without knowledge of the nature of the charge or without knowledge that the sentence actually imposed could be imposed ․ (4) The plea resulted from the denial of effective assistance of counsel.”  Connecticut Practice Book Section 39–27.  “[A] defendant may not withdraw his plea after the conclusion of the sentencing proceeding, as once a defendant's sentence is executed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any claims regarding the validity of that plea in the absence of a statute or rule of practice to the contrary.”   State v. Guerra, 132 Conn.App. 62, 65 (2011)(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

V. ANALYSIS

The defendant admitted he was not forced to plead guilty to any count.   His claim that the police promised him that they would urge the state's attorney to recommend a concurrent sentence if he gave a statement does not render his pleas involuntary.   Months after he gave the statement, the defendant rejected the State's offer of four years.   By the time the State made its offer, he should have known that his hope for a concurrent sentence had disappeared.   Therefore, his conversation with the police could have played no role in his decision to plead guilty.   His claim that his lawyer refused to go to trial is unsupported in the record.   As the plea was voluntary, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

VI. CONCLUSION OF LAW

The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to invalidate the plea.

VII. JUDGMENT

The motion to withdraw the plea is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Randolph, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. This court infers the defendant seeks to withdraw pleas on all counts..  FN1. This court infers the defendant seeks to withdraw pleas on all counts.

Randolph, Kevin A., J.