225 Conn.App. 234
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- Harold T. Banks, Jr. was convicted of first-degree robbery and did not appeal his conviction.
- More than five years after his conviction became final, Banks filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing it should be excused as untimely due to mental health-related delays.
- At the evidentiary hearing on the timeliness issue, Banks' appointed habeas counsel argued good cause but presented no evidence.
- The habeas court dismissed the petition as untimely, finding Banks failed to rebut the statutory presumption of delay without good cause.
- After denial of certification to appeal, Banks argued on appeal that his habeas counsel was ineffective and the habeas court had a duty to intervene; these arguments had not been raised below.
- The Supreme Court remanded to consider whether Banks’ unpreserved claims were nonfrivolous under Simms v. Warden standards, and the appellate court ultimately dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appellate review of unpreserved claims not included in certification to appeal | Such review should be available under plain error or Golding if the claims relate to the habeas court’s handling of the proceeding | Certification requirement in §52-470(g) bars review of unpreserved, uncertified claims | Supreme Court: Review available for nonfrivolous challenges to habeas court’s conduct, but here claims were not nonfrivolous |
| Habeas counsel’s alleged ineffective assistance | Counsel’s failure to present evidence was so incompetent the court should address it directly on appeal; no strategic reason could explain it | There may not have been any evidence to present; reviewing counsel’s performance requires factual development not present here | Record inadequate for review of ineffective assistance; such claims require further factual development in habeas proceedings |
| Court’s alleged duty to intervene in face of counsel’s performance | The habeas court should have intervened when it saw counsel not presenting evidence, to preserve the petitioner’s rights | No such general duty exists; intervention risks intruding on attorney-client relationship and is not established in law | No error; courts are not required to step in to assess counsel’s professional judgment in ongoing cases |
| Adequacy of record for review under Golding and plain error doctrines | Record sufficient; plain ineffectiveness "on the face of the record" | Factual basis for ineffectiveness not apparent; speculative to rule without evidence | Inadequate record defeats review under Golding and plain error; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (criteria for when denial of certification to appeal is abuse of discretion; standard for appellate review of habeas petitions)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (standard for review of unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (federal standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 (review of ineffective assistance claims typically inappropriate on direct appeal)