185 Conn. App. 139
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Dennis Adkins pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to felony murder in 2000, represented by Attorney Francis Mandanici; the court conducted a plea canvass and accepted the plea.
- At sentencing (May 26, 2000) Adkins orally asked to withdraw his plea; the trial judge denied the request after finding no legal basis beyond a change of heart.
- Adkins litigated a prior habeas petition (2003) alleging Mandanici was ineffective; that petition was denied and the denial affirmed on appeal.
- In 2016 Adkins brought a later (third) habeas petition alleging (1) trial counsel Mandanici failed to advise him of his right to appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea, (2) Mandanici had a conflict of interest after Adkins filed a grievance, and (3) prior habeas counsel Brian Russell was ineffective for failing to raise these claims in the earlier habeas action.
- The habeas court dismissed the direct claims against Mandanici as successive but evaluated whether Russell was ineffective for not raising them; after trial it found Russell was not deficient and denied the petition; Adkins obtained certification to appeal.
- On appeal the court reviewed whether Russell’s alleged deficiencies (failure to raise appeal-right and conflict claims; failure to present certain evidence) satisfied Strickland/Lozada standards and affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Adkins) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Russell was ineffective for failing to claim Mandanici failed to advise Adkins of appellate rights after denial of motion to withdraw plea | Russell should have raised that Mandanici failed to advise Adkins of appeal rights; a rational defendant would have appealed | The motion to withdraw lacked nonfrivolous grounds and an appeal would likely fail; claim is successive | Held: No. Habeas court found the motion was a change of heart, no nonfrivolous grounds existed, and Adkins did not reasonably demonstrate interest in appealing; Russell not deficient |
| Whether Russell was ineffective for failing to present evidence at the prior habeas trial showing the plea resulted from Mandanici’s ineffectiveness | Russell failed to elicit testimony linking counsel’s deficiencies to Adkins’s decision to plead | Commissioner: Claim was not pleaded below (unpreserved); court cannot decide unpled claims | Held: Not reviewed on the merits because Adkins did not distinctly raise this ground in his amended petition (unpreserved) |
| Whether Russell was ineffective for failing to claim Mandanici’s alleged conflict of interest caused the guilty plea | Adkins alleged the grievance against Mandanici created a conflict that influenced his decision to plead | Commissioner: The grievance did not create a disqualifying conflict; any nonjurisdictional defect was waived by the voluntary Alford plea; claim was weak | Held: No. Habeas court found plea knowingly and voluntarily made; waiver doctrine and record support that the conflict claim was dubious and Russell was not ineffective |
| Whether the habeas court erred by relying on waiver sua sponte when rejecting the conflict-based claim | Adkins argued the court improperly raised waiver without respondent pleading it | Commissioner: Court considered waiver as an additional reason and adjudicated the claim on the merits | Held: No reversible error. Court considered the claim on merits; waiver was discussed as supplemental support; the court did not dismiss solely on an unpleaded defense |
Key Cases Cited
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (approving guilty plea despite protestation of innocence)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (U.S. 2000) (counsel's duty to consult about appeal when defendant demonstrates interest or a rational defendant would appeal)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (Conn. 1992) (permitting habeas-on-habeas claims and requiring Strickland review for habeas counsel claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Ghant v. Commissioner of Correction, 255 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2000) (applying Roe/Strickland framework in Connecticut for failure-to-consult appellate-rights claims)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2008) (clarifying standards governing successive habeas claims)
- Carraway v. Commissioner of Correction, 317 Conn. 594 (Conn. 2015) (discussing preservation and review of collateral claims after plea)
- State v. Simpson, 329 Conn. 820 (Conn. 2018) (clarifying when evidentiary hearings/new counsel requests are required on plea-withdrawal motions)