Court Opinion

ID: 9730433
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:12:07.553949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:06.431185
License: Public Domain

House, C. J.
(dissenting). I do not agree with the conclusion of the majority opinion that the trial court erred.in refusing to vacate the defendant’s *347plea of guilty to the count of the substituted information charging him with conspiracy to commit larceny in the first degree by defrauding the insurance company which insured Park’s car. That conclusion of error is predicated on the conclusion that this court “cannot say that the record reveals adequate factual basis” for the plea.
The fallacy of that conclusion can best be demonstrated by referring to the proceedings at the time the trial court accepted the plea of guilty and by noting the court’s careful and exhaustive questioning of the defendant and the latter’s answers after he had entered his plea of guilty and before it was accepted by the court.1 Those proceedings, *348as properly printed ill the appendix to the state’s brief, delineate a conspiracy to defraud the insurance company by an apparent theft of Park’s car, an arrangement by other conspirators with the defendant Marra to go to New London and take the car, and the faet that Marra did come from Bridgeport with one/of the conspirators and participated in the overt act of taking the car, which was later discovered jan his driveway in Bridgeport. Obviously his 'specific intent to participate in the attempted fraud could only be shown on a trial by circumstantial evidence but “[s]pecific intent is usually proven by circumstantial evidence. State *349v. Sul, 146 Conn. 78, 87, 147 A.2d 686; State v. Nathan, 138 Conn. 485, 488, 86 A.2d 322.” State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322, 334, 363 A.2d 72.
The trial court expressly fonnd that at the time the defendant entered his plea he had the benefit of effective legal counsel, that he understood the nature of the charges and the consequences of his plea, that he was aware of his constitutional rights, that he acted voluntarily, and that there was a factual basis for his plea, and concluded that his plea was entered voluntarily. Every one of those findings is amply supported by the record of the *350court’s personal questioning of the defendant and his answers to the inquiries. Very significantly, the defendant has not attacked a single one of those findings by an assignment of error as required by § 621 of the Practice Book. The court’s conclusions, in turn, are fully supported by the finding, and “Conclusions logically supported by the finding must stand.” State v. Warren, 169 Conn. 207, 213, 363 A.2d 91.
I would find no error in the court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate his plea of guilty to the conspiracy charge.

 “Tlie Court: Now, Mr. Marra, I will ask you the same questions I did the other gentlemen on that. Have you thoroughly discussed these matters with Mr. Owens [attorney for the defendant]?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: Are you satisfied with the advice of counsel and assistance he has rendered you in this regard?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: You understand by entering pleas of guilty you are giving up certain of your constitutional rights?
Mr. Marra: Yes, sir.
The Court: You understand you are giving up your right to a trial by court or by jury?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: Do you understand you are giving up your right to cross-examine and confront your accusers?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: Do you understand you are giving up your privilege against compulsory self-incrimination?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: Have any threats been used against you, force, or duress to induce you to enter these pleas of guilty?
Mr. Marra: No.
The Court: Do you understand if the court accepts your pleas of guilty you can’t reopen them without prior permission from the court?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: If the court accepts your pleas of guilty, the court is not necessarily bound by any recommendation the state’s attorney *348might make concerning disposition in these matters. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: As I understand, it, you pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit larceny in the first degree, which is a Class B felony, calls for a maximum of up to twenty years. Are you aware of that, sir?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: As to the second count, you pleaded guilty to the crime of larceny in the first degree which is a Class B felony, calls for a maximum of up to twenty years. Are you aware.of that?
Mr. Marra: Yes.
The Court: I think we can revert to the factual situation, Mr. Hurley [assistant state’s attorney].
Mr. Hurley: Thank you, Your Honor. This situation began on October 30, 1975, Your Honor, when the accused Parks reported that his 1975 Ford Model Elite had been stolen. Subsequent police investigation turned out that Mr. Parks, who is a barber, has the Gentlemen’s Choice Barber Shop on Poquonock Boad in Groton, and that the accused, Ira Blonder, James Kernozek, and Abraham Stein, all work at Blonder’s Auto Parts in Waterford, and that Thomas Marra comes from Bridgeport, and that he had a previous record of auto theft.
It seems that Mr. Parks was in need of money, and he discussed this problem with Mr. Blonder, and was talking about selling his car, which he had recently purchased in June for $8100. He owed about $5500 on the vehicle. He was making payments of $162 a month, and he was having trouble with the car; and, again, had thought of selling it. But he was told he would probably lose money if he sold it.
*349In speaking with James Kernozek, he was told that there might be a better way to arrange to get money on the car. And he also spoke to Mr. Blonder about this. They told him it would cost him $300 to have the car stolen, and then he would be able to collect on the loss from his insurance company.
This was finally worked out, and it was arranged through Blonder and Kernozek that the accused, who is not here today, Stein, would, with Mr. Marra, who was contacted by Mr. Kernozek or Mr. Stein, I’m not sure which, that he would come up and arrange to steal the car. Mr. Marra came up with Mr. Stein. The keys were left in the car. Parks pointed out to them where the car was; they took it. Blonder was with him at the time. And then Mr. Parks and Blonder arranged to call the police and notify the police the car had been stolen; and this was done.
He was actually sent a check and put in a claim for the loss — Mr. Parks did. He was actually sent a cheek from the insurance company, but apparently at this time the theft had been discovered. The company stopped payment. And I believe with his lawyer— I think he didn’t attempt to cash it. His lawyer advised him to return the cheek to the company, which he did.
The vehicle was found in the driveway of Thomas Marra in Bridgeport and was identified as the vehicle that had been taken. Mr. Parks was cooperative with the police and told them the entire story. Then, when confronted, Mr. Blonder and Kernozek and Stein also admitted their involvement.
The Court: Now, Mr. Marra, listening to the factual situation, are these the offenses to which you wish to enter your pleas of guilty, sir?
Mr. Marra: Yes, sir, Your Honor.
The Court: Are you on probation or parole at the present time?
*350Mr. Marra: No, Your Honor.
The Court: All right. The recommendation situation in this matter?
Mr. Hurley: In this ease the recommendation will be prison suspended and one year in jail.
The Court: As I understand it then, on one count it will be prison, execution suspended, and one year recommended to be effective in jail. Ho you understand that, sir?
Mr. Marra: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: Hearing the recommendations, do you still want the court to accept your pleas of guilty because you are voluntarily making the same and are guilty of the offenses?
Mr. Marra: Yes, Your Honor.
The Court: All right. Do either of you gentlemen see any reason why the court should not accept the pleas of guilty?
Mr. Owens: No, Your Honor.
The Court: Mr. Hurley?
Mr. Hurley: No, Your Honor.
The Court: In view of that, the court will make the finding that the accused has had the benefit of effective legal assistance of counsel. He understands the nature of the charges and consequences of his plea. He is aware of his constitutional rights, including his privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, his right to a trial by court or by jury, his right to confront his accusers. He is acting voluntarily. There is a factual basis for the acceptance of the pleas. Hence the pleas of guilty are accepted and findings of guilty are noted.”