Argued
January 14, 2019
Appeal
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of New London,
Jongbloed, J.
Page 608
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 609
Lisa
J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Jennifer
F. Miller, assistant states attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were, Michael L. Regan, states attorney, and Sarah
Bowman, assistant states attorney, for the appellee (state).
Prescott,
Bright and Norcott, Js.
OPINION
PRESCOTT,
J.
Page 610
[190
Conn.App. 334] The defendant, Marcus H., appeals from the
judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of
assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle in
violation of General Statutes § 53a-60d, two counts of risk
of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21
(a) (1), two counts of reckless endangerment in the first
degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-63, reckless
driving in violation of General Statutes § 14-222, operating
a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
liquor in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a) (1),
operating a motor vehicle with an elevated blood alcohol
content in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a)
(2),[1] interfering with an [190 Conn.App.
335] officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a, and
increasing speed in an attempt to escape or elude a police
officer in violation of General Statutes § 14-223 (b). The
defendant claims on appeal that the court improperly (1)
violated his constitutional right to counsel by denying his
application for the appointment of a public defender and (2)
violated his constitutional right to due process when it did
not order, sua sponte, a judicial marshal to remove his leg
shackles during the trial.[2] We are not persuaded by the
defendants claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of
conviction.[3]
The
jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In the
early morning of May 25, 2014, a motorist driving behind the
defendant observed that his car [190 Conn.App. 336] remained
stopped through two cycles of a stoplight. The motorist
pulled over, exited her car, and approached the passenger
side of the defendants car. She observed the defendant
sleeping or unconscious in the driver seat and two young
girls in car seats in the back of the car. The motorist
Page 611
woke up the defendant, who then drove off.
Due to
concern for the childrens safety, the motorist called the
police and informed them that she thought that the defendant
was intoxicated. On the basis of the information provided by
the motorist, the police station issued a "be on the
lookout" report over their radio system for a black
Acura with a black male operator and two females in the back
seat. Officer Jason Pudvah saw a car that matched the
description from the report idling at a nearby gas station.
Pudvah approached the car and observed the defendant slumped
over in the drivers seat and his two and four year old
daughters in the backseat. Pudvah knocked on the window and
spoke with the defendant. After requesting the defendants
information, Pudvah returned to his vehicle. While Pudvah was
speaking with police dispatch, the defendant drove off at a
high rate of speed.
Pudvah
initially pursued the defendant but stopped due to fear for
the childrens safety and in the hope that the defendant
would slow down. Further down the road, the defendant lost
control of his car and crashed into a telephone pole. The car
became airborne and landed upside down in a residential
swimming pool. As a result of the accident, the defendants
younger daughter suffered serious injuries to her arm and his
older daughter sustained an ankle injury.
After
the trial, during which the defendant represented himself, a
jury found the defendant guilty of all charges, and the court
rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Thereafter,
the defendant pleaded [190 Conn.App. 337] guilty to being a
subsequent offender to operating a motor vehicle while under
the influence of intoxicating liquor in violation of §
14-227a (g) (2). The trial court, Jongbloed,
J., sentenced the defendant to a total effective
term of twenty-three years of incarceration, execution
suspended after fourteen and one-half years, followed by five
years of probation with special conditions. This appeal
followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
I
The
defendant claims that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to counsel and, therefore, to due
process, by denying his application for the appointment of a
public defender. We disagree.
The
following additional facts are relevant to this claim. On the
first day of jury selection on February 18,
2016,[4] the defendant requested a continuance
to replace his private attorney, Attorney John Williams, with
another private attorney. Specifically, he claimed that he
had a dispute with Attorney Williams regarding payment of
attorneys fees, and he did not believe that Attorney
Williams would represent him properly. Attorney Williams
informed the court that he had "told [the defendant]
expressly and more than once that under no circumstances
would his [lack of payment] in any way, shape, or form affect
[his] commitment to [the defendant]." The court denied
the motion for a ...