155 Conn. App. 548
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Andrews was convicted after jury and court trials of assault-related offenses and possession of a sawed-off shotgun; total effective sentence 40 years; convictions affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Andrews).
- At a supervised pretrial, Judge Damiani offered a plea of 20 years suspended after 12; Andrews rejected it and asked trial counsel to counteroffer nine years; the judge refused.
- Trial counsel conveyed the offer and counseled Andrews about strengths/weaknesses of the state’s case, likely sentence exposure, and that a trial risked a sentence higher than 12 years; counsel did not explicitly recommend acceptance.
- Andrews filed a second revised amended habeas petition arguing ineffective assistance for failing to recommend acceptance of the plea; habeas court held counsel’s performance was adequate and that Andrews rejected the plea for reasons independent of counsel’s advice.
- Habeas court found no prejudice because Andrews was adamant he would not accept a double-digit plea; the court denied certification to appeal and this appeal followed, which the Appellate Court dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Andrews) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to recommend acceptance of the court’s plea offer | Trial counsel should have advised Andrews to accept the 20-year (suspended after 12) plea; absence of such advice rendered assistance deficient | Counsel adequately explained the offer, the state’s strong case, sentencing exposure, and left final decision to Andrews; that advice met professional obligations | Counsel’s performance was not deficient; habeas court properly denied certification |
| Whether petitioner suffered prejudice from counsel’s alleged deficiency | But for counsel’s recommendation, Andrews would have accepted the plea and received the 12-year exposure | Even if counsel had recommended the plea, Andrews was adamant he would not accept a double-digit plea, so there is no reasonable probability of a different result | No prejudice shown; petitioner would not have accepted plea regardless of counsel’s recommendation |
| Whether the denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion | The issue is allegedly debatable among jurists and should be certified | The issue is not debatable given the record distinguishing this case from Barlow; denial was proper | Denial was not an abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Andrews, 114 Conn. App. 738, 971 A.2d 63 (Conn. App. 2009) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
- Kennedy v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 68, 72 A.3d 1133 (Conn. App. 2013) (standard of review for habeas certification and appellate review)
- Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 424, 1 A.3d 1242 (Conn. App. 2010) (ineffective assistance performance/prejudice framework)
- Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn. App. 781, 93 A.3d 165 (Conn. App. 2014) (distinguished: counsel gave no advice on plea offer and was found deficient)