Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction
150 Conn.App. 781
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Barlow petitions for habeas relief after three petitions; second petition was amended by Neary with claims about Moore withdrawn.
- Trial court offered a one-time plea of nine years to serve (suspended after nine), but Barrow sought six years; offer remained for about a year before withdrawal.
- Habeas court found Moore’s conduct regarding the plea offer deficient and dismissed on deliberate bypass grounds for the first count; Neary’s conduct was not found deficient on the second count.
- Court concluded Moore failed to provide professional advice about the plea offer, though she conveyed the offer and related facts to the petitioner.
- On appeal, the court reversed in part, remanding for proceedings on prejudice; it also left undecided the status of Neary’s conduct, and noted possible pending issues regarding deliberate bypass.
- Final remand directs the habeas court to address whether prejudice exists and, if so, grant relief by allowing a guilty plea under the prior offer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deliberate bypass was correctly applied | Barlow argues deliberate bypass was improperly raised sua sponte. | Commissioner contends deliberate bypass applies and was properly invoked. | Deliberate bypass improperly raised sua sponte; remanded for prejudice analysis. |
| Whether Moore provided deficient performance by failing to advise on the plea offer | Moore failed to give professional advice and counsel regarding the nine-year plea offer. | Moore conveyed the offer without giving specific recommendations as to acceptance. | Moore's performance deficient; failure to provide advice constitutes ineffective assistance. |
| Whether the prejudice prong can be evaluated on appeal without habeas findings | Barlow seeks presumed prejudice based on the record that he would have accepted the offer with proper advice. | Record insufficient for prejudice; remand necessary to assess likelihood of acceptance. | Remanded for findings on prejudice; if established, relief and potential plea reinstatement may follow. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fine v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 136 (Conn. App. 2013) (deliberate bypass contextualized in habeas practice)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 (Conn. 2009) (deliberate bypass doctrine in habeas context)
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (ineffective assistance in plea negotiations; two-part Strickland test)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice from incorrect plea advice; plea bargaining focus)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (plea-bargain standards under Strickland)
- Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 424 (Conn. App. 2010) (duty to advise and independent evaluation in plea decisions)
- Cardoza v. Rock, 731 F.3d 169 (2d Cir. 2013) (defense counsel must advise on plea decisions; client decides)
- Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 1996) (duty to discuss plea alternatives; reasonable conduct standard)
- Peterson v. Commissioner of Correction, 142 Conn. App. 267 (Conn. App. 2013) (plea negotiation duties and defense counsel responsibilities)
- Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342 (Conn. 2012) (plea negotiations as critical stage; need for informed advice)
- DeMarco v. State, 311 Conn. 510 (Conn. 2014) (crediting witness testimony and DeMarco narrow factual approach)
- Roccisano v. Menifee, 293 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2002) (early articulation of right to advised plea decisions)