Skip to main content

State v. Davis

Citations

  • 338 Conn. 458

Syllabus

Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel by denying his written motion to dismiss defense counsel without adequately inquiring into certain grounds for his motion and without conducting any inquiry into defense counsel's alleged con- flict of interest. During a pretrial hearing, the defendant informed the trial court that he no longer wanted to be represented by defense counsel. The court ruled that there was no basis to dismiss defense counsel but that the defendant could file a written motion to dismiss counsel and provide reasons why counsel should be dismissed. Thereafter, the defen- dant filed his written motion to dismiss counsel, in which he asserted four grounds for the dismissal, including that a conflict of interest had arisen. Following a hearing, the court denied the defendant's motion without inquiring into defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest. Two years later, at the defendant's sentencing hearing, the sentencing court asked the defendant if he wanted to address the court. In response, the defendant again raised the issue of defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest, stating that counsel was also representing the victim's son. The court proceeded to sentence the defendant without inquiring into the alleged conflict of interest. On appeal from the judgment of convic- tion, held: 338 Conn. 458 OCTOBER, 2021 459 State v. Davis 1. Contrary to the defendant's claim, the trial court adequately inquired into the grounds asserted by the defendant in support of his written motion to dismiss defense counsel, other than the alleged conflict of interest; the defendant's claims that defense counsel did not diligently provide him with copies of the state's discovery materials or investigate informa- tion he had provided to her, that she allowed her in

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.