J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney,
with whom, on the brief, were John Smriga, state's
attorney, C. Robert Satti, senior assistant state's
attorney, and Ann Lawlor, senior assistant state's
attorney, for the appellee (state).
Sheldon, Prescott and Pellegrino, Js.
defendant, Tyriece S. Fuller, appeals from the judgment of
conviction rendered after a jury trial, of conspiracy to
steal a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§
53a-48 and 53a-212; conspiracy to commit larceny in the
fourth degree in violation of General Statutes §§
53a-48 and 53a-125; illegal manufacture, distribution, sale,
prescription or administration of narcotics by a person who
is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statues
§§ 53a-8 and 21a-278 (b); illegal manufacture,
distribution, sale, prescription or administration of
narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent within 1500
feet of a public elementary school in violation of General
Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b) and 21a-278a (b); and
conspiracy to commit the illegal manufacture, distribution,
sale, prescription or administration of narcotics by a person
who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes
§§ 53a-48, 21a-277 (a), 21a-278 (b) and 21a-279
defendant claims on appeal that the trial court, in denying
his requests to personally possess a copy of the discovery
items disclosed by the state pursuant to Practice Book
§§ 40-10 and 40-13A: (1) violated his federal and
state constitutional rights to counsel,  a fair trial and
due process; (2) abused its discretion; and (3) committed
structural error. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm
the judgment of the trial court.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
resolution of the defendant's claims. The defendant was
arrested following an extensive investigation by the
Statewide Urban Violence Cooperative Crime Control Task Force
(task force), which targeted the sale of illegal firearms and
narcotics in the city of Bridgeport in 2012. The defendant
was implicated in the investigation after he was involved in
the sale of stolen guns and oxycodone pills to confidential
informants in two separate controlled purchases in June and
July, 2012. On May 22, 2013, the state filed an information
charging the defendant with multiple offenses. Attorney
Frederic Ury was appointed as the defendant's counsel on
June 24, 2013, and represented the defendant throughout the
majority of his pretrial proceedings. On February 19, 2014,
Ury moved to withdraw his appearance, citing a breakdown in
the attorney-client relationship. On February 26, 2014, the
court granted Ury's motion to withdraw. On March 3, 2014,
Attorney Miles Gerety filed an appearance on behalf of the
defendant. A six-day jury trial commenced on July 15, 2014.
Several members of the task force, and an alleged
coconspirator, Serafettin Senel, testified. The defendant did
not testify. On July 23, 2014, the defendant was found guilty
on the counts tried to the jury and the count tried to the
August 28, 2014, the defendant filed a handwritten motion to
dismiss Gerety as his counsel. In his motion, the defendant
alleged that Gerety assaulted him, coerced him into not
presenting evidence or testifying at trial, and conspired
with various other individuals to convict him. On October 17,
2014, the court granted Gerety's oral motion to withdraw.
On October 21, 2014, Attorney Donald Cretella filed an
appearance to represent the defendant with respect to
sentencing. On January 26, 2015, the court sentenced the
defendant to a total effective sentence of eight years of
incarceration, followed by five years of special parole. This
appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will
be set forth as necessary.
defendant's first claim on appeal is that the trial court
violated his federal and state constitutional rights in
denying his requests to personally possess a copy of the
discovery items disclosed by the state pursuant to Practice
Book § 40-10. The defendant contends that § 40-10
‘‘creates a presumption'' that he is not
permitted to possess a copy of the state's disclosure in
violation of his constitutional rights. The defendant asserts
that his claim was adequately preserved by his attorneys'
three ‘‘motions to provide redacted reports to
[him], which were denied by the trial court . . . .''
Alternatively, the defendant seeks review pursuant to
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823
(1989), asmodified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn.
773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). The state argues that the
defendant is not entitled to review of this claim because it
is unpreserved and not constitutional in nature. We conclude
that the defendant's claim was not properly preserved for
following additional facts are necessary for our resolution
of this claim. On July 10, 2013, Ury orally sought permission
from the court to provide the defendant with a redacted copy
of a police report. The court, Devlin, J., denied
the motion. On May 28, 2014, Gerety asked for the court's
permission to provide the defendant with a redacted copy of
the state's disclosure. The court, Blawie, J.,
deferred ruling on the motion until counsel had an
opportunity to meet off the record to try and resolve the
disclosure issue. On June 4, 2014, Gerety filed a motion for
disclosure and production requesting that the state permit
defense counsel to provide a copy of the state's
disclosure to the defendant pursuant to Practice Book §
40-10. On June 5, 2014, after conducting a hearing to
determine ‘‘whether or not the defendant should
be entitled to have his own copies of the state's
disclosure materials, '' Judge Blawie denied the
record indicates that the defendant, through counsel, never
framed his requests as a constitutional issue. None of the
requests contained any assertion that the defendant's
constitutional rights to due process or the effective
assistance of counsel entitled him to personally possess
discovery documents. Therefore, appellate review of his
unpreserved claim is subject to State v. Golding,
supra, 213 Conn. 239-40. ‘‘Under this standard,
[a defendant] can prevail on a claim of constitutional error
not preserved at trial only if all of the following
conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the
alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional
magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3)
the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . .
deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to
harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate
harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a
reasonable doubt.'' (Emphasis in original; internal
quotation marks omitted.) State v. Biggs, 176
Conn.App. 687, 705-706, A.3d (2017).
conclude that this claim is not ‘‘of
constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a
fundamental right . . . .'' State v.
Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239. A criminal defendant has
no general constitutional right to discovery. See
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559, 97 S.Ct.
837, 51 L.Ed.2d 30 (1977). This court has previously held
that a criminal defendant's procedural right to the
disclosure of discovery pursuant to Practice Book §
40-13 ‘‘does not give rise in and of itself to a
constitutional right.'' State v. Sewell, 95
Conn.App. 815, 822, 898 A.2d 828, cert. denied, 280 Conn.
905, 907 A.2d 94 (2006); see also State v. Coriano,
12 Conn.App. 196, 200, 530 A.2d 197, cert. denied, 205 Conn.
810, 532 A.2d 77 (1987) (‘‘The right under the
rules of practice to statements of ...