DocketNumber: No. CV-95-0550783
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 3625
Judges: CORRIGAN, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 3/6/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The petitioner's arrest resulted from the stabbing death of Arnold Joseph who was returning home from his night job at 5 A.M. on January 30, 1992 in Stamford. The petitioner was overheard stating that he was going to rob Mr. Joseph as he ran to him and was seen struggling with him before stabbing him to death. The petitioner's gloves, mask and knife were found and the petitioner, although not admitting the attempted robbery, did admit the stabbing.
Mr. Riccio testified that he was appointed as a special public defender to represent the petitioner some time in late May 1992 after the court found probable cause on the charges of murder and felony murder. On July 15, 1992 Judge Dean ordered an evaluation of the petitioner under the provisions of G.S.
Dr. Goodwin testified that he saw the petitioner in the Spring of 1993 and that he was placed on stabilizing medication to manage any aggression and tranquilizers. This was done because of his complaints of having conversations with voices or as the doctor explained, hallucinating. He stated that hallucination would be obvious to anyone who observed the person but did not have any collaboration with correctional officers on it. He treated him by assuming the petitioner was telling the truth. By July 8, 1993 he was on a dosage of 100 mg. of thorazine each evening to allow him to sleep peacefully. That dosage was very low which would have a normal effect of several hours and might have a minimal residuary into a few hours of the following day. All the medications prescribed taken at the dosages given should increase thought processes. Over dosage might cause Parkinson type symptoms and low dosage would cause the underlying symptoms to appear again.
From the evidence presented, the court finds that the petitioner was competent to stand trial in late July of 1003 and that he answered the questions of Judge Dean at his plea appropriately with obvious understanding. I further find that Attorney Riccio had a competency evaluation available to him in 1992 but also provided one for the trial in July, 1993. A state may presume that a defendant is competent and require him to prove incompetence by a preponderance of the evidence. Medina v.California,
The petitioner has also claimed ineffectiveness as to appeal advise, but there is no claim that the practice book provides appeal for anything but an adverse decision. See P.B. 944. There is no present claim that the sentence given was not in accordance with the plea agreement.
For the above reasons the petition is denied.
Corrigan, JTR