AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Russell peeler bpt ct movie9/24/2023 The defendant, Russell Peeler, appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court in two consolidated cases, rendered after a jury trial conducted on remand from this court’s decision in State v. 2d 409 (2006), as the remedy for the violation of his right to counsel of choice under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, when that defendant has become indigent and cannot afford to retain that attorney’s services for the new trial. This appeal requires us to consider the extent to which a criminal defendant is entitled to representation by a particular attorney at a new trial ordered in accordance with United States v. Smriga, state’s attorney, and Joseph Corradino, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). Trudeau, deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant). Argued December 14, 2015-officially released MaLisa J. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. ****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not violate Defendant’s right to counsel of choice at his new trial by denying his funding motion. After a second jury trial, Defendant was found guilty on all counts. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that the Supreme Court’s decision Peeler I did not require it. On remand, Defendant filed a motion asking the State to fund Mastronardi’s private fee or, alternatively, to dismiss the charges against him on the grounds that he was now indigent and tat Mastronardi would not represent him at the new trial at the rate paid to assigned counsel by the Division of Public Defender Services. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the trial court improperly granted the State’s motion to disqualify his chosen attorney, Gary Mastronardi, and that the improper disqualification was structural error requiring a new trial. After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted in two consolidated cases of attempted murder, two counts of risk of injury to a child, and murder.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |