Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 347

Background

In 1997 Barlow was charged with attempt to commit murder and related offenses; the trial court offered a plea of 15 years, execution suspended after 9 (9 years to serve), and the state offered 18/14; Barlow sought about 6 years and rejected the court offer.
At trial the state introduced strong inculpatory evidence (witness statements, ballistics linking shell casings to a gun in Barlow’s car, inculpatory statements by codefendants), and Barlow was convicted and sentenced to 35 years.
Barlow filed multiple habeas petitions alleging his trial counsel (Moore) provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him about the court’s 9‑year offer during plea negotiations.
The Appellate Court previously held counsel’s performance was deficient and remanded to determine prejudice; on remand a second habeas trial (before a different judge) credited expert testimony and Barlow’s testimony and found a reasonable probability he would have accepted the 9‑year offer if properly advised.
The habeas court granted relief; the Commissioner appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which affirmed the habeas court’s finding that Barlow satisfied Strickland prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barlow proved prejudice under Strickland (that he would have accepted the 9‑year plea)	Barlow: credible testimony + strong contemporaneous evidence (generous offer vs. 35 years, willingness to plead, small gap between 6 and 9 years, strength of state’s case) show reasonable probability he would have accepted	Commissioner: habeas court improperly relied on Appellate Court’s deficiency holding and on post‑hoc testimony; contemporaneous evidence shows Barlow could decide for himself	Court: affirmed — habeas court’s factual finding that Barlow likely would have accepted the 9‑year plea is supported and not clearly erroneous
Whether the Appellate Court’s prior determination that counsel’s performance was deficient remained final	Barlow: Appellate Court’s decision was final on the deficiency issue and not relitigable because no certification was sought	Commissioner: argued the deficiency determination was not finally resolved and should be revisited	Court: Appellate Court’s decision was a final determination of the legal issue; respondent may not relitigate it
Whether Lee v. United States requires contemporaneous evidence for rejected plea offers	Barlow: Lee’s admonition targets accepted pleas; in any event contemporaneous evidence here is sufficient	Commissioner: Lee requires contemporaneous evidence to substantiate post‑hoc claims and such evidence predominates against Barlow	Court: avoided deciding Lee’s full scope but held the record contained sufficient contemporaneous evidence to corroborate Barlow’s testimony
Whether the habeas court’s credibility and factual findings were clearly erroneous	Barlow: habeas court heard witnesses, credited petitioner and expert, and weighed contemporaneous evidence appropriately	Commissioner: conflicting contemporaneous evidence (intelligence, prior plea behavior, risk taking, access to statements) undermines petitioner’s claims	Court: gave deference to the habeas factfinder and concluded findings were supported and not clearly erroneous

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (prejudice standard when counsel’s ineffectiveness leads to loss of a plea offer)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012) (remedies and prejudice analysis when counsel’s errors affect plea bargaining)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (2017) (admonition to seek contemporaneous evidence to substantiate post‑hoc claims about plea choices)
Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342 (2012) (Connecticut application of prejudice inquiry in the plea context)
Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 338 Conn. 330 (2021) (plea bargaining is a critical stage; counsel has duties in plea negotiations)