State v. Washington

── State v. Washington ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: May 19, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  State v. Washington STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JAYVELL J. WASHINGTON (AC 47703) Cradle, C. J., and Suarez and Bishop, Js. Syllabus Convicted, following an unconditional plea of guilty, of assault in the sec- ond degree and criminal possession of a firearm, the defendant appealed. He claimed that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea filed pursuant to the rules of practice (§§ 39-26 and 39-27). Held: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s argu- ment that he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Practice Book § 39-27 (4) on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, specifically, that defense counsel allegedly failed to investigate all exculpatory evidence prior to advising the defendant to plead guilty, as the defendant failed to make any showing, apart from bare assertions, that, as a result of his counsel’s ineffective assistance, he was prejudiced and that he would have insisted on going to trial if he had obtained complete discovery from the state. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s argu- ment that he was entitled to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Practice Book § 39-27 (2) because the prosecution allegedly suppressed certain material in violation of Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) after a request by the defense, as the defendant’s Brady claim amounted to nothing more than conclusory assertions, and, accordingly, the defendant failed to satisfy his burden of proving that his guilty plea was made involuntarily pursuant to § 39-27 (2). Argued February 19—officially released May 19, 2026 Procedural History Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of assault in the second degree and criminal possession of a firearm, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Bridgeport, geographical area number two, where the defendant was presented to the court, McShane, J., on a plea of guilty; thereafter, the court, McShane, J., denied the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and rendered judgment of guilty in accordance with the plea, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed. Mary Boehlert, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).  State v. Washington Timothy F. Costello, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Cor- ra