Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. GUY LOUISE-JULIE (AC 19477) STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ANN LOUISE-JULIE (AC 19479)
Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Pellegrino, Js. Argued September 11--officially released November 28, 2000 Counsel

Norman A. Pattis, with whom, on the brief, was John R. Williams, for the appellants (defendant in each case). Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, and Susan Naide, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

SPEAR, J. The defendants, Guy Louise-Julie and Ann Louise-Julie, appeal from the trial court's denial of their motions to vacate their guilty pleas.1 On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly denied their motions because their separate trial counsels were ineffective when they (1) failed to conduct a proper forensic investigation, (2) did not prepare for trial, (3) first

advised the defendants that their trial was going forward shortly before the trial was scheduled to begin, thereby depriving them of time to review and consider their options, and (4) advised the defendants, without any factual basis, that racism would infect the trial because of pretrial publicity. We affirm the judgments of the trial court. The court's memorandum of decision and the record disclose the following facts and procedural history. The defendants are married and self-employed. After several business reversals, they applied for and received state assistance. In February, 1997, the state seized business records from the defendants' home pursuant to a search warrant. After reviewing the records, the state accused the defendants of concealing income and assets when they applied for state aid. On March 25, 1997, the defendants were arrested in connection with the defrauding of a public community. The state charged each defendant with one count of larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. Louise-Julie.pdf

Connecticut Law