State v. Peeler

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court held that a defendant whose right to counsel of choice was violated and who received a new trial is not automatically entitled to representation by the previously disqualified attorney. On remand, the trial court must consider whether that attorney is willing and able to represent the defendant under a mutually acceptable fee arrangement, including assignment if the defendant is indigent. Because Attorney Mastronardi would not accept assigned-counsel rates, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s request for state funding or dismissal of the charges.

Holdings

1. A defendant remanded for a new trial to remedy a violation of the right to counsel of choice is entitled only to a new trial, with the defendant's options for representation determined by the financial and other circumstances existing at the time of the new trial.
2. When a new trial is ordered to remedy a counsel-of-choice violation, the trial court must consider whether it is feasible for the defendant to be represented by the previously disqualified attorney under a mutually acceptable fee arrangement, including assignment if the defendant has become indigent.
3. The defendant was not entitled to require the state to pay Mastronardi's private fee rates because Peeler was indigent and Mastronardi would not accept assigned-counsel rates.
4. Dismissal of the charges was not required because the defendant could receive the constitutionally required remedy through a new trial and appointment or hiring of other counsel, and the record did not show egregious prosecutorial interference warranting dismissal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a criminal defendant who became indigent after an appellate court ordered a new trial as the remedy for an unconstitutional deprivation of counsel of choice was entitled to have the state pay the previously chosen attorney's private fee rates.
2. Whether the trial court was required to dismiss the charges when the previously chosen attorney was unwilling to represent the indigent defendant at assigned-counsel rates.
3. What procedure and remedy apply on remand when the attorney whose prior disqualification caused the new trial is unwilling or unable to represent the defendant under a mutually acceptable fee arrangement.

Disposition

affirmed