194 Conn.App. 178
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Victim Michelle McMaster was found strangled in a Waterbury basement in 1999; evidence suggested possible sexual assault.
- Donna Russell later identified Andrews, Barry Smith, and Orenthain Daniel as present and testified she saw Andrews choking the victim while others restrained and undressed her.
- Andrews gave a written statement after arrest admitting he grabbed the victim’s neck and hit her; he was tried, acquitted of murder but convicted of felony murder and sentenced to 35 years; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Andrews).
- In 2003, Norman Reynolds gave a signed statement and later testified that Smith had confessed to accidentally killing the victim; Reynolds’s statement was not called at Andrews’s trial.
- Andrews filed a habeas petition alleging Brady violations and ineffective assistance for trial counsel Eroll Skyers’ failure to investigate/call Reynolds; the habeas court denied the petition and denied certification to appeal.
- Andrews appealed the denial of certification; the appellate court held the habeas court did not abuse its discretion and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court abused discretion in denying certification to appeal | Andrews: denial was an abuse because his ineffective-assistance claims are debatable and deserve review | Commissioner: Andrews failed to meet Lozada/Simms factors; issues not debatable | Denied — habeas court did not abuse its discretion; appeal dismissed |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/call Reynolds and present Smith’s confession | Andrews: Reynolds would have testified Smith acted alone and that Andrews was not present when Smith killed the victim, creating reasonable probability of different verdict | Commissioner: Reynolds’ account did not exclude other participants; Russell’s eyewitness testimony and Andrews’s own written admissions were highly inculpatory, so no prejudice | Denied — habeas court found no Strickland prejudice; Reynolds’ statements would not likely have changed the outcome |
| Whether the State violated Brady by withholding Reynolds’ statement | Andrews: State suppressed exculpatory Reynolds statement | Commissioner: Reynolds’ statement was included verbatim in an arrest warrant application counsel received; no suppression | Denied at habeas level; Andrews did not challenge this ruling on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (statutory/abuse‑of‑discretion limits on appeal after habeas court denies certification)
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (factors for evaluating whether habeas court abused discretion in denying certification adopted in Connecticut)
- State v. Andrews, 313 Conn. 266 (2014) (direct appeal decision setting out trial facts and affirming Andrews’s conviction)