State v. LaMotte

210 Conn.App. 44

268 A.3d 162

STATE of Connecticut

v.John H. LAMOTTE

AC 43973

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 21, 2021

Officially released January 18, 2022

Jennifer B. Smith, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Sarah Hanna, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, and Jennifer F. Miller, former assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Prescott, Cradle and DiPentima, Js.

CRADLE, J.

The defendant, John H. LaMotte, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly denied his request for an evidentiary hearing on his motion to withdraw those pleas. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The record reveals the following relevant procedural history. In connection with the defendant's alleged commission of two bank robberies in Groton, on December 6, 2016, and September 18, 2017, the defendant was charged, by way of a substitute information dated May 8, 2019, with two counts of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (4), one count of larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124 (a) (2), and one count of larceny in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-125. On May 28, 2019, after his jury trial commenced,¹ the defendant pleaded guilty, under the Alford doctrine,² to two counts of robbery in the first degree pursuant to a plea agreement. In exchange for those pleas, the defendant agreed to a total effective sentence of six and one-half years of incarceration, followed by seven years of special parole. The court canvassed the defendant, found that the pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made with the assistance of competent counsel and accepted them. The court ordered a presentence investigation and continued the case for sentencing.

Thereafter, the defendant sent a letter, dated June 28, 2019, to the court, seeking to withdraw his guilty pleas on the grounds of a claimed conflict of interest and ineffective assistance of counsel, and asked that new counsel be appointed to represent him. On August 7, 2019, the defendant and his counsel appeared before the court for sentencing, at which time the court addressed the letter it had received from the defendant. The court allowed defense counsel to withdraw, at counsel's request, from the defendant's case. The court indicated that it would conduct a hearing on the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas and explained to the defendant that he would be assigned new counsel to represent him at that hearing. Thereafter, the defendant told the court that his attorney had a conflict of interest that was not disclosed to him for sixteen months, and, thus, he "wasn't being defended." He stated: "I was brain-dead because they had a fake witness come in, and then they did nothing about it at the trial. ... And they also caught the prosecution, the inspector who was sitting there coercing the witnesses before they even went in front of the jury. And they were informed about it, still didn't do nothing about it. ... I have a witness here in court that seen it going on ... and I have another one, a state witness, that'll come in and testify to verify that. ... Them telling the ... witnesses that I was guilty. They know I did it. He already signed the confession. You can say whatever you want in front of the jury. It's not gonna matter, and they informed [my counsel] here, and he didn't do nothing about it to stop it; plus, the false witness that they brought in at the end. I told them that days ahead, and nobody's ever gotten to the bottom of that." The court reiterated to the defendant that new counsel would be assigned "who will listen to [the] allegations [underlying his motion] and see whether they think it's valid enough to try to withdraw the plea." The defendant responded: "Most of it is right on the tape, recorded at the trial." The court ordered that new counsel be appointed to represent the defendant and continued the case to give the defendant's new counsel the opportunity to review the motion to withdraw the guilty pleas.

On December 19, 2019, the court conducted a hearing on the defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. At the hearing, the defendant's new counsel argued: "By way of a proffer, [the defendant] is advancing two arguments why his plea should be withdrawn. The first really goes to the concept that he was under duress or that his plea was not voluntary. And the facts, or the proffer which backs that up, is that [the defendant's] sister was present outside during the trial and overheard one of the state's inspectors speaking to a witness, who had not testified yet, making some comments to the witness that [the defendant] was guilty, that they've got—they've got it on paper that he's done this before.

"There was also an allegation that there was some sort of a confession which—a written confession which [the defendant] had executed that was being shown to the potential witness, Melanie Brown ... and that [the defendant's] sister relayed her concerns to that inspector. And, moreover, she relayed those facts to [the defendant] over the weekend during that trial, and ... that [the defendant] heard these words and in effect realized that the fix was in for him, in not so many words—that he really didn't have a fair opportunity. And that was the duress that he was under when he did enter his plea. He felt that it was the best that he could do and that his—well, his will was overborne as a result of those facts made known to him.

"The second argument that he is advancing is that his prior counsel were ineffective. And I believe that there are two grounds for that: number one, there was a potential conflict of interest with a potential third party, Kyle Hare ... and that wasn't made known to [the defendant] until immediately before the trial. And the second ground is that his alibi was not adequately pursued in terms of photographs of him at a different location around when the robbery occurred, as [well as] phone records indicating he wasn't in the area.

"Based upon the totality of those facts, Your Honor, I'd respectfully request that you grant [the defendant's] motion to withdraw his guilty plea, or, in the alternative, give him the opportunity of an evidentiary hearing to further lay out those facts for you."

In response, the prosecutor argued that the defendant had been thoroughly canvassed by the court when he entered his guilty pleas, and the record reflected that there "was no indication whatsoever that [the defendant] felt that his will was overborne at any point in time." The prosecutor contended that the defendant simply had "buyer's remorse" after entering his guilty pleas. The prosecutor further argued that the defendant failed to allege sufficient facts to warrant an evidentiary hearing on his ineffective assistance of counsel claims and that those claims were thus better suited for habeas proceedings in which the defendant could "flesh out any such claims."

Defense counsel then added: "One of the other grounds that [the defendant] is advancing with regard to the ineffective assistance claim is that it was his understanding that a probation which was—he was on probation in Rhode Island. He was informed that, as a condition of the—the deal that he was accepting, that that probation would be terminated, and it was not terminated.

"He has documentation indicating that he's still on the—that probation. So, that's just one of the other grounds on the ineffective assistance claim, Your Honor."

Having heard the arguments of both counsel, the court first noted that, at the time the defendant pleaded guilty, he was "in the middle of trial." The court noted that the defendant was facing a maximum prison sentence of forty years for the two robbery charges and that the sentence that he would receive pursuant to the plea agreement was not "even close to that." The court then explained that it was referring to the transcript of the plea proceeding and recounted that proceeding as follows: "All right, so when you came back from the trial and decided to plea[d], [the prosecutor], who [is] not here, went through the facts of the case and you had pled—that you had pled guilty, and I say at that time, did you have enough time to talk to your lawyers about these cases and your decision to plead guilty under what's known as the Alford doctrine, and you said yes.

"And I said, did they go over with you the maximum sentence you could have received in jail if you went to or finished your trial, and if you were convicted on the evidence the state had to show that you were guilty? And then I go over it: For two counts of robbery in the first degree, each one holds twenty years in jail, so for what you pled to today, just these two counts, you could go to jail for forty years. Did they go over that with you? Yes.

"And so, you're satisfied, then, with this plea agreement and your lawyer's help? Yes.

"And you understand that by pleading guilty, you're giving up your right to actually, basically, to finish the trial. You could have had, as I say, the rest of your trial, and you could have testified if you wanted to, put on witnesses of your own, confronted and cross-examined the witnesses against you, put on any defenses you might have had with the help of your lawyers. But we weren't finishing your trial because of your pleas. Do you understand that? Yes.

"I then say, do you have any other open charges anywhere else? No. I don't. Are you on probation anywhere else? Yes. You are? Yes. Rhode Island.

"And then [the prosecutor] said, my understanding is that [the defendant] had been placed on probation in Rhode Island but had been violated, and I believe that probation may have been terminated. And then [defense counsel] said,...