Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction
127 Conn. App. 538
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Anderson pled Guilty (Alford) to three counts of burglary in the third degree and one count of larceny in the second degree, with a probation violation admitted; court sentenced five years with three years special parole; multiple other charges were nolled.
- Anderson filed a revised amended habeas petition on October 8, 2009 alleging trial court impartiality and ineffective assistance due to a potential conflict of interest.
- Babcock, from the Hartford Public Defender’s Office, represented Anderson; co-defendant Fennely was represented by Famiglietti from the same office.
- Babcock testified she sought Famiglietti’s permission to speak with Fennely to learn if he would testify, but Famiglietti denied; she claimed no communication of their cases occurred.
- The habeas court ruled Anderson’s claim of trial court impartiality was procedurally defaulted, but granted the petition based on an asserted actual conflict of interest between Babcock and Famiglietti as colleagues in the same office.
- On appeal, the respondent challenged (i) the alleged Rule 1.7 conflict imputation, (ii) the proposition that ethical breaches alone prove a Sixth Amendment violation, and (iii) the sufficiency of record evidence of an actual conflict; the appellate court reversed, concluding there was no imputed conflict and no actual conflict affecting representation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Babcock’s representation was prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct | Anderson | State argued imputation of conflict under 1.10/1.11; dual public defenders from same office create a conflict | Imputation of conflict not required; no actual imputation under amended rules |
| Whether an ethical breach alone constitutes a Sixth Amendment violation | Anderson | Ethical violation could support a conflict claim | Ethical breach alone does not establish deprivation of effective assistance |
| Whether the record supports an actual conflict of interest affecting performance | Anderson | No evidence of actual impaired representation; timing rather than deficiency | No actual conflict shown; petition denied on this basis; judgment reversed for denial of petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1980) (actual conflict requires proof of adverse impact on representation)
- Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112 (Conn. 1991) (two-pronged test for conflict and prejudice; actual conflict requires adverse impact)
- State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389 (Conn. 1996) (imputation and conflicts in public defender offices; evidentiary considerations)
- Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (U.S. 1986) (ethical standards alone do not constitutionalize counsel conduct)
- Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 87 Conn.App. 568 (Conn. App. 2005) (conflict principles and need for actual impairment; appellate standard)
- United States v. Williams, 372 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2004) (policy on conflicts and duty of loyalty)
- Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn.App. 530 (Conn. App. 2010) (ineffectiveness framework; Strickland-based guidance)