Ayala v. Commissioner of Correction
159 Conn.App. 608
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- On Nov. 4, 2007, Victor Ayala entered the Weavers’ apartment, threatened the victim with what she described as a handgun, searched for his girlfriend (Lozada), and left; the victim called police and later identified Ayala in a one-on-one confrontation.
- Ayala was arrested nearby, wearing his coat inside out, holding a bandana and cap, gave a false name and birthdate, and denied being at the Weavers’ building; no gun was found.
- At trial the Weavers (victim and husband) testified consistently with their initial police reports despite earlier recantations; the jury convicted Ayala of burglary and related offenses; conviction affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Ayala).
- In the habeas petition Ayala argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and call two witnesses (brother Fernando Ayala and Jesus Gonzalez) who would have testified Ayala resided/stayed at the Weavers’ apartment, allegedly negating unlawful entry.
- At the habeas hearing Fernando and Gonzalez testified they visited/stayed at the apartment and that Ayala kept possessions there; the habeas court found their testimony at best only "peripherally inconsistent" with the Weavers’ accounts and did not find prejudice under Strickland.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ayala) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call Fernando and Gonzalez | Failure to present these witnesses deprived Ayala of evidence that he resided at the apartment, negating unlawful entry element | Their testimony would have duplicated friend Campbell’s testimony, been less credible (kinship, records), and would not have changed the verdict | No prejudice under Strickland; habeas court correctly denied relief |
| Whether additional testimony (including Lozada) would discredit Weavers and undermine verdict | Testimony about residency would have undercut Weavers’ testimony and shown lawful presence | Weavers’ eyewitness ID, recanted statements explained as coerced, plus evidence of Ayala’s lies and disguise made conviction reliable | Court found no reasonable probability outcome would differ; petitioner failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Sanchez v. Commissioner of Correction, 314 Conn. 585 (2014) (prejudice inquiry focuses on totality of evidence and fundamental fairness)
- State v. Ayala, 133 Conn. App. 514 (2012) (direct appeal recitation of facts and affirmance of conviction)
- State v. Stagnitta, 74 Conn. App. 607 (2003) (definition and scope of unlawful entry/remaining and license to enter)
- Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn. App. 167 (2005) (standards of review for habeas fact findings and mixed questions)
- Martinez v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 307 (2013) (discussion of Strickland application in Connecticut)
- Santaniello v. Commissioner of Correction, 152 Conn. App. 583 (2014) (restating Strickland standards in habeas context)