Artiaco v. Commissioner of Correction
180 Conn. App. 243
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2018Background
- Petitioner William Artiaco was convicted after a jury trial of first‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child; total effective sentence imposed. An earlier direct appeal was dismissed for failure to file a brief; habeas court later found ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and restored that appeal.
- Petitioner filed an amended habeas petition alleging twenty distinct failures by trial counsel Christopher Grotz (e.g., inadequate preparation, failure to subpoena witnesses or DCF records, failure to move to sever or to file various motions in limine, inadequate expert handling, and problematic closing argument).
- The habeas court dismissed ten specifications for lack of credible supporting evidence and addressed the remaining specifications individually, finding some performance nondeficient, some deficient but not prejudicial, and one (failure to file a motion in limine limiting constancy‑of‑accusation evidence) deficient but not prejudicial.
- The habeas court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and also denied certification to appeal. Petitioner appealed to the appellate court and challenged the habeas court’s denial of ineffective‑assistance claims and its refusal to grant certification.
- The appellate court concluded petitioner’s brief failed to identify which specific habeas findings were challenged or to present legal or factual analysis—consisting largely of vague, conclusory allegations—and therefore the claims were inadequately briefed and unreviewable.
Issues
| Issue | Artiaco's Argument | Respondent's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel provided constitutionally effective assistance (general multi‑claim) | Grotz committed multiple errors (twenty specified failures) that cumulatively denied effective assistance | Majority of allegations unsupported by credible evidence; where addressed, court found no deficiency or no prejudice | Dismissed as inadequately briefed on appeal; habeas court’s denial not reviewed |
| Failure to move in limine to limit constancy‑of‑accusation evidence (specification f) | Counsel failed to file a Troupe motion to exclude or limit constancy testimony | Habeas court found failure to file such a motion (deficient) but petitioner did not prove prejudice | No relief — deficient performance found but no prejudice shown |
| Failure to challenge/limit expert testimony and prepare petitioner’s expert (specifications g, h, q, r, n) | Counsel failed to file motions to limit state experts and failed adequately to prepare or retain defense expert | Habeas court found no deficient performance on limiting experts or adequate investigation; or found no prejudice from any deficiency | No relief — habeas court’s determinations upheld; not meaningfully challenged on appeal |
| Denial of certification to appeal the habeas decision | Artiaco contended the habeas court erred in denying certification and in rejecting ineffective‑assistance claims | Respondent pointed out petitioner’s appellate brief failed to identify specific errors or provide analysis; thus claims are unreviewable | Appeal dismissed for inadequate briefing; certification denial not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 (1996) (framework for admissibility of prior misconduct and constancy‑of‑accusation evidence)
- State v. Favoccia, 119 Conn. App. 1 (2010) (limitations on expert testimony to avoid vouching and ultimate‑issue testimony)
- In re Elijah C., 326 Conn. 480 (2017) (standard for adequate briefing and when claims are unreviewable)
- State v. Fowler, 178 Conn. App. 332 (2017) (analysis requirement; issues inadequately briefed may be deemed abandoned)