Abreu v. Commissioner of Correction
160 A.3d 1077
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Rafael Abreu was convicted of first‑degree manslaughter with a firearm for a 2002 shooting; he conceded shooting the victim but claimed self‑defense. He was sentenced to 38 years and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Abreu filed a first habeas petition (appointed counsel Paul Kraus) alleging among other things that trial counsel Martin Minnella failed to investigate/call eyewitness Luis Vicente; the first habeas court denied relief and this was affirmed on appeal.
- Abreu then filed a second ("habeas on a habeas") petition claiming Kraus provided ineffective assistance by not adequately prosecuting three trial‑counsel‑ineffective‑assistance claims: (1) failure to investigate/call Vicente (who later gave a different statement), (2) failure to admit a toxicology report showing the victim’s intoxication, and (3) misadvice/promise about sentencing exposure (alleged promise of a ≤20‑year outcome).
- The habeas court dismissed most direct claims as procedurally defaulted but reviewed the contested claims on the merits and denied relief, finding Kraus’ representation at the first habeas trial was not deficient and that Abreu failed to satisfy Strickland prejudice for the underlying trial‑counsel claims.
- Key factual weaknesses for Abreu: Vicente’s statements were inconsistent over time; the toxicology evidence had been excluded at trial for lack of a demonstrated nexus to aggression; Abreu’s promise claim rested solely on his own non‑credible testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Abreu's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas counsel (Kraus) was ineffective for not calling Vicente at the first habeas trial | Vicente’s later statement that an object was removed from the victim’s waistband would corroborate self‑defense; calling him would have shown inadequate trial counsel investigation | Kraus offered Vicente’s 2011 statement summary into evidence; Vicente’s accounts were inconsistent and speculative; strategic decision not to call him was reasonable | Denied — Kraus’ performance was not deficient; Abreu failed to show prejudice under Strickland |
| Whether habeas counsel was ineffective for not pursuing admission of the victim’s blood‑alcohol/toxicology evidence | Toxicology showing 0.17 BAC would support a theory that intoxication made the victim more aggressive, bolstering self‑defense | The toxicology report had been precluded at trial; admission required expert linkage between intoxication and aggression; no expert presented at habeas | Denied — trial counsel’s failure not shown prejudicial; no viable trial‑counsel claim for habeas counsel to raise |
| Whether habeas counsel was ineffective for not pursuing claim that trial counsel promised a ≤20‑year sentence and thus misadvised Abreu | Abreu relied on Minnella’s alleged assurance to go to trial rather than accept plea | Allegation rests on Abreu’s uncorroborated testimony; no record evidence of any promise; habeas court found Abreu not credible | Denied — no credible evidence trial counsel made a promise; no prejudice shown |
| Whether Abreu satisfied the two‑pronged Strickland/Lozada requirement for a habeas‑on‑habeas (ineffective habeas counsel based on ineffective trial counsel) | Argued Kraus’ omissions meant Abreu could not relitigate trial‑counsel errors | Courts require proving both habeas‑ and trial‑counsel deficiency and prejudice; record does not support either for Kraus or Minnella | Denied — Abreu failed to establish either deficiency or prejudice; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (Conn. 1992) (habeas petition is proper vehicle to challenge effectiveness of appointed habeas counsel; petitioner must show both habeas‑ and trial‑counsel ineffective)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2008) (habeas judge as factfinder; mixed questions of law and fact reviewed plenarily)
- Andrews v. Commissioner of Correction, 45 Conn. App. 242 (Conn. App. 1997) (to show trial counsel ineffective for failing to call witness, petitioner must present the witness at habeas or otherwise show the witness’ testimony would be favorable)
- State v. Abreu, 106 Conn. App. 278 (Conn. App. 2008) (direct appeal affirming conviction; exclusion of toxicology evidence upheld absent proof linking intoxication to increased aggression)