Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s conclusion that Leonardo Lopez’s Alford pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made. The court held that, absent a positive indication that defense counsel failed to explain the elements of the charged offenses, courts may presume that counsel provided that explanation.
Holdings
- The defendant's pleas were knowingly and voluntarily made, and the trial court's failure to inform him explicitly of all elements of the charges did not render the pleas unknowing or involuntary.
- The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendant's guilty pleas under the Alford doctrine were knowingly and voluntarily made when the trial court did not expressly ascertain whether he understood the elements of the charged offenses.
- Whether the Appellate Court correctly applied the presumption that defense counsel ordinarily explains the elements of the charged offenses to a defendant entering a guilty plea.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970)(cited)
- State v. Lopez, 77 Conn. App. 67, 75-77, 822 A.2d 948 (2003)(approved in part and corrected in part)
- State v. Lopez, 265 Conn. 903, 904, 829 A.2d 421 (2003)(cited)
- State v. Butler, 255 Conn. 828, 830, 769 A.2d 697 (2001)(cited)
- Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647, 96 S. Ct. 2253, 49 L. Ed. 2d 108 (1976)(followed)
- Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 436-37, 103 S. Ct. 843, 74 L. Ed. 2d 646 (1983)(followed)
- Oppel v. Meachum, 851 F.2d 34, 38 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 911, 109 S. Ct. 266, 102 L. Ed. 2d 254 (1988)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…