Arroyo v. Commissioner of Correction, 160 A.3d 425

Background

In 2001 Arroyo participated with Richmond Perry in a package‑store robbery during which the store owner, Caruso, was shot and killed; Arroyo admitted post‑incident acts (opening register, sharing cash, hiding and discarding register, facilitating sale of the firearm). Arroyo was convicted of felony murder, larceny and conspiracy; acquitted of murder and first‑degree robbery; sentenced to 60 years and direct appeal affirmed.
Perry pleaded guilty in a related proceeding and the prosecutor stated the state would recommend 45 years "predicated" on Perry testifying "truthfully" about Arroyo; Perry testified at Arroyo’s trial and gave inconsistent statements about whether he had a deal.
At Arroyo’s trial defense counsel cross‑examined Perry extensively, used Perry’s plea transcript to refresh his recollection but did not admit the transcript into evidence as an exhibit; jury received a specific credibility instruction about accomplice testimony.
Arroyo filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to mark Perry’s plea transcript; failure to consult/call a tear‑gas expert about secondary transfer; failure to introduce apartment‑layout photos to support an alibi) and prosecutorial impropriety (failure to correct Perry’s false testimony about the plea deal).
The habeas court assumed arguendo deficient performance on the transcript issue but found no prejudice under Strickland, found the prosecutorial‑misconduct claim procedurally defaulted (Arroyo failed to show cause and prejudice), and credited trial counsel’s efforts to consult tear‑gas experts and strategic reasons not to introduce apartment layout photos; it denied certification to appeal.
The Appellate Court dismissed Arroyo’s appeal, holding that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification to appeal on the ineffective‑assistance and procedural‑default issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Arroyo)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
1) Whether counsel was ineffective for not offering Perry’s plea hearing transcript as an exhibit	Transcript would show Perry’s sentence recommendation was contingent on truthful testimony and would undermine Perry’s credibility; counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial	Counsel thoroughly impeached Perry at trial; omission of exhibit was not reasonably probable to change outcome given strong inculpatory evidence	Denied — assuming deficiency, no Strickland prejudice; habeas court didn’t abuse discretion
2) Whether prosecutorial impropriety (allowing/soliciting false testimony about plea deal) is reviewable despite not being raised at trial	Default cured by cause and prejudice because trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the prosecutorial‑misconduct claim	Claim is procedurally defaulted; Arroyo cannot show counsel was ineffective so cause and prejudice fails	Denied — procedural default sustained because ineffective‑assistance prerequisite not met
3) Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to consult/call a tear‑gas expert on secondary transfer	An expert could have undermined the state’s forensic evidence tying Arroyo’s jacket to the store and created reasonable doubt	Counsel consulted multiple experts (including Loghman) but none gave a helpful opinion; strategic decision not to call one was reasonable	Denied — counsel investigated; tactical decision reasonable; no deficient performance
4) Whether counsel was ineffective for not introducing apartment layout photos to support alibi witness	Photos would explain how alibi witness might not have seen Perry’s companion and would bolster alibi credibility	Introducing layout evidence risked highlighting inconsistencies in the alibi witness’s testimony; tactical choice to avoid undermining the alibi was reasonable	Denied — tactical decision reasonable; no ineffective assistance

Key Cases Cited

Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (establishes that a habeas petitioner must show the denial of certification was an abuse of discretion to obtain appellate review)
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (sets factors for assessing abuse of discretion in denial of certification to appeal)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (direct appeal affirming Arroyo’s convictions; summarizes trial evidence)
Whelan v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (permits substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements when declarant testifies and is cross‑examined)
Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, 319 Conn. 548 (discussion of Strickland standard in Connecticut habeas context)