Summary
This concurrence in the judgment addresses the violation of a crime victim’s constitutional and statutory rights to notice and participation before a court accepts a plea agreement and imposes sentence. The opinion concludes that the court lacks authority to vacate the defendant’s sentence as appellate relief, but recommends supervisory procedures requiring trial courts to verify compliance with victims’ rights before accepting pleas or imposing sentences.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the victim's rights amendment to the Connecticut Constitution and General Statutes § 54-91c gave Cornell a right to notice of and an opportunity to respond to the proposed plea agreement before the court accepted the plea and imposed sentence.
- Whether the Supreme Court of Connecticut could vacate the defendant's sentence or grant other appellate relief for the violation of the victim's constitutional and statutory rights.
- Whether the court should exercise its supervisory authority to require trial-court procedures ensuring that crime victims are notified of and able to exercise their rights before plea acceptance or sentencing.
Holdings
- The prosecutor and trial court failed to comply with Cornell's constitutional and statutory rights to notice and an opportunity to state her views regarding the plea agreement and sentence before the plea was accepted and sentence was imposed.
- The court lacked authority to vacate the defendant's sentence or grant the requested appellate relief for the violation of Cornell's victim rights.
- The concurrence would direct trial courts to conduct a detailed inquiry at plea-acceptance and sentencing proceedings concerning notice of the victim's rights, the victim's opportunity to submit a statement, and notice of the proceeding; these proposed procedures were not adopted by the judgment joined in by the concurrence.
Key quotations
“This court has recognized that ‘‘acceptance of a guilty plea must be contingent upon hearing from the victim in order to provide the victim with a meaningful right to participate in the plea bargaining process.’’”
“This case provides a stark reminder that a constitutional right, unadorned by a remedy to enforce or vindicate that right, is a hollow one.”
Factual background
Tabatha Cornell represented that she was the mother of Briana Washington, whose death resulted from the defendant's conduct. Cornell's attorney notified the prosecutor in writing that Cornell wished to participate in plea negotiations and address the court at sentencing, and specifically opposed a suspended sentence and a plea avoiding an admission of guilt. Without notifying Cornell of the proposed plea agreement or the plea hearing, the prosecutor presented the agreement to the trial court, which accepted the defendant's nolo contendere plea and imposed the agreed sentence. The court later permitted Cornell to address it, but only after the plea had been accepted and the sentence imposed.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged with several offenses arising from conduct causing the death of Briana Washington. The trial court accepted the defendant's nolo contendere plea under an agreement and imposed a ten-year sentence, execution suspended after two years, followed by three years of probation. After learning that the victim's representative had not been given the required opportunity to respond before acceptance of the plea and sentencing, the representative sought relief in the Supreme Court of Connecticut. The concurrence agreed that the violation occurred but that the court lacked authority to vacate the sentence or otherwise grant the requested appellate relief.