Skip to main content

State v. Randolph

Citations

  • 227 Conn. App. 732

Syllabus

The defendant appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court finding him in violation of his probation and revoking his probation. The defendant claimed that the trial court improperly denied his counsel's motion to withdraw her appearance and failed to conduct an adequate hearing into his competency to stand trial and, thus, improperly denied his motion for a competency evaluation pursuant to statute (§ 54- 56d). Held: 1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw filed by the defendant's counsel: the court's ruling made clear that the timing of the motion was central to its determination because, although the court stated at a hearing more than one month before the scheduled violation of probation trial that it had no objection to counsel's proposed motion to withdraw, counsel indicated she would file that motion within one or two days of the hearing, and, at the time she ultimately filed the motion, it was only nine days before the trial date; moreover, the court properly concluded that exceptional circumstances did not exist to justify granting the motion so close to trial, as the record reflected that the defendant had the capacity to communicate with the court and that it was the defendant's choice to refuse to communicate with his counsel. 2. The trial court properly evaluated the defendant's motion for a competency evaluation and, thus, did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion: although the defendant's counsel disagreed with the defendant's deci- sions not to accept a plea offer and not to attend the trial, it was the defendant's right to do so and did not reasonably suggest that he lacked an understanding of the facts of the case or the nature of the proceeding and there was no indication that he could not assist with his defense; moreover, the court observed the defendant's demeanor and conversed with him over the course of a lengthy colloquy regarding the defendant's participation in the hearing,

Judges: Bright; Suarez; Westbrook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.