Court Opinion

ID: 9701864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:41:11.828191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:30.239032
License: Public Domain

Bogdanski, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree to no error in the conviction of the defendant, but cannot agree that there was no error in the sentencing proceeding.
The defendant received the maximum penalty for the offense of which he was convicted. Immediately before sentence was imposed, the defendant requested “an opportunity to address your Honor before your Honor imposes sentence.” The court replied: “Well, I don’t think it’s going to serve any purpose. I am not going to allow him to do it. I have made up my mind. Nothing he is going to say is going to change the sentence; the only thing he is going to do is make me feel bad about what I’m going to do. I don’t feel bad about it now. I don’t want to listen to him ask for mercy, because, to tell you the truth, I’m not in the mood to give him any mercy today. What else can he say but give him some kind of a break, so I am just going to go forward with the sentence.” The defendant duly excepted to the ruling of the court.
Section 8 of article first of the Connecticut constitution enacted in 1965 provides in part: “In all *478criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to he heard by himself and by counsel.” That same provision has been in our state constitution since 1818.
In the present case, the sentencing judge made it clear that his reason for refusing to hear the defendant was an unwillingness to consider any argument the defendant might make regarding sentencing. In fact, the judge specifically stated that he feared that comments by the defendant might affect him and for that reason he did not wish to hear them.
It should be noted that the defendant did not seek to participate in the trial, nor did he seek dual representation. He simply asked to be heard before sentence was imposed after the trial was over. In the circumstances of this case, the refusal by the court to permit the defendant to be heard constituted a violation of a fundamental constitutional right.
I would find error in part and remand for resentencing.