188 Conn. App. 397
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- William Betts was convicted after a 2005 jury trial of multiple offenses including risk of injury to a child and sexual assault; effective sentence 43 years (execution suspended after 23), affirmed on direct appeal.
- Before trial the state offered to recommend 20 years, execution suspended after 8, followed by 20 years probation, if Betts pleaded guilty to principal charges; Betts rejected the offer and was tried.
- Betts filed a habeas petition (challenging trial counsel Bruce Lorenzen’s effectiveness), arguing counsel gave constitutionally inadequate advice about (1) the maximum penalties/exposure from convictions and (2) the strength of the state’s case, which caused him to decline the plea.
- At the habeas trial both Betts and Lorenzen testified; neither could clearly recall detailed plea‑negotiation discussions after 13 years, though Lorenzen insisted he explained that felony charges carried significant time and recommended accepting the plea.
- The habeas court credited Lorenzen’s testimony that he advised Betts about the strength of the state’s case (including an inculpatory letter and eyewitness testimony), and that Betts was adamant on going to trial because of collateral‑consequence concerns; the court denied the petition.
- On appeal the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, applying Strickland standards and finding the petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Betts' Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel inadequately advised Betts of maximum penalties/total exposure | Lorenzen failed to tell Betts the maximum possible penalty for each charge and the cumulative maximum, so Betts rejected plea under mistaken belief (e.g., told worst would be 15 years) | Counsel did discuss felony penalties and recommended the plea; lack of precise recollection after 13 years is not proof of deficiency | Court: No deficient performance — record supports that counsel discussed felony penalties; petitioner failed to overcome presumption of competent representation |
| Whether counsel inadequately advised Betts as to strength of state’s case | Counsel should have told Betts conviction was near certain; mere recommendation to plead was insufficient | Counsel explained elements, likely witnesses, inculpatory letter, and recommended the plea; that advice falls within reasonable professional judgment | Court: No deficient performance — counsel adequately conveyed strengths/weaknesses and advised plea was in Betts’ best interest |
| Whether Betts was prejudiced by any alleged deficient advice (i.e., would have accepted plea) | Betts would have ‘probably’ accepted the offer if properly advised about exposure | Betts was adamant about going to trial due to collateral‑consequence fears; his testimony was equivocal and not persuasive on prejudice | Court: No prejudice — habeas court credited counsel’s account and found petitioner’s statements insufficient to show a reasonable probability he would have accepted the plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Childree, 189 Conn. 114 (Conn. 1983) (defendant must be aware of maximum possible sentence when pleading)
- Vasquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 424 (Conn. App. 2010) (counsel should usually inform defendant of strengths/weaknesses and plea alternatives)
- Lane v. Commissioner of Correction, 129 Conn. App. 593 (Conn. App. 2011) (counsel’s misleading optimism about trial odds can be constitutionally deficient)
- Horn v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 767 (Conn. 2016) (standard of review for habeas factual findings and mixed questions)
- Mahon v. Commissioner of Correction, 157 Conn. App. 246 (Conn. App. 2015) (prejudice standard when a plea offer is rejected or lapses)
- State v. Betts, 286 Conn. 88 (Conn. 2008) (direct appeal opinion summarizing facts of the underlying criminal case)