Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction
17 A.3d 1138
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Petitioner Oscar Anderson was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child; habeas corpus petition denied, certification to appeal denied, and this appeal follows.
- Habeas court applied Strickland two-prong test but found no prejudice; appellate review is plenary on questions of ineffective assistance.
- Appellate record shows nearly three years of alleged abuse beginning January 1998; victim testified to repeated oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse; Kanz examined victim; petitioner claimed STD history but trial counsel did not secure records or experts.
- Petitioner argued trial counsel failed to investigate STDs, secure records, retain a medical expert, and impeach the victim’s testimony; petitioner asserted prejudice under Strickland’s prejudice prong.
- Majority held the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal but found no prejudice from alleged ineffective assistance; dissent argued trial counsel was deficient and prejudiced.
- Direct-appeal history summarized as sustained conviction and remand for resentencing on one charge; subsequent habeas petition challenged trial counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion | Anderson argues the denial was debatable among jurists | Commissioner contends denial was proper | Abuse of discretion found; certification should have been granted for the Strickland issue |
| Whether trial counsel’s performance was prejudicial under Strickland | Counsel failed to investigate and present STD evidence to undermine guilt | No prejudice shown; evidence did not exonerate petitioner | No prejudice established; conviction upheld on habeas review |
| Whether trial counsel’s failure to secure medical records and an expert was deficient | Failure to obtain records/experts fell below reasonable competence | No effective basis to require such steps under circumstances | Counsel deficient; however, prejudice not established in this record |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance standard (performance and prejudice))
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (abuse-of-discretion and merits review framework for habeas petitions)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (adopted two-prong test for appellate review of habeas denials)
- State v. Brown, 279 Conn. 493 (2006) (professional performance standard and prejudice analysis)