162 Conn.App. 716
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Petitioner Chandra Bozelko was charged with jury tampering after jurors received spoofed calls during her unrelated criminal trial; law enforcement traced use of a SpoofCard and a prepaid Tracfone to her residence and computer.
- Bozelko pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford to three counts of attempted juror tampering and was sentenced to concurrent 27-month terms; other counts were nolled.
- She filed a habeas petition alleging trial counsel Dean Popkin rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate telephone records fully and failing to interview a potential witness (Willie Green) who took a message from a landline call the evening of the spoofed calls.
- The habeas court found Popkin had hired an investigator, obtained forensic computer review, requested phone records, reviewed tape recordings with Bozelko, and reasonably concluded the records and potential witness would not exculpate her; Popkin advised pleading guilty because of the strength of the state’s case (including recordings).
- The habeas court denied relief and certification to appeal; the Appellate Court reviewed whether counsel’s performance was deficient and whether prejudice under the Hill/Hill-modified Strickland standard was shown.
Issues
| Issue | Bozelko's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient for failing to investigate phone records and not interviewing Willie Green | Popkin failed to adequately investigate phone records and did not interview Green, whose notes might have supported an innocent-call theory | Popkin conducted reasonable investigation (hired investigator, obtained records, forensic review) and records/notes were unhelpful or inconsistent with exculpatory theory | Counsel’s performance was not deficient; habeas court’s finding not clearly erroneous |
| Whether petitioner suffered prejudice under the modified Strickland/Hill standard (would not have pled guilty but insisted on trial) | Had counsel properly investigated, Bozelko would have refused the Alford plea and gone to trial because records would have undermined state’s case | Strength of state’s evidence (recordings, SpoofCard linkage) and lack of persuasive new evidence mean no reasonable probability she would have pleaded differently | No prejudice; court applied Hill/Carraway standard and credited that Bozelko would not have insisted on trial |
| Whether habeas court abused discretion by denying certification to appeal | Denial was improper because issues are debatable and warrant appellate review | Denial was proper because the claims were not debatable among jurists of reason given factual findings and legal standards applied | Denial of certification affirmed; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the habeas court used the correct prejudice standard (Copas vs. Carraway) | Court applied superseded Copas standard focusing on strength of state’s case | Court used the correct Carraway/Hill standard and considered whether petitioner would have gone to trial | Court used proper Hill/Carraway prejudice standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (modified prejudice inquiry when conviction follows guilty plea)
- Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139 (prior Connecticut interpretation of Hill, discussed and superseded in context)
- Carraway v. Commissioner of Correction, 317 Conn. 594 (clarified prejudice standard for plea-based ineffective assistance claims)
- Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62 (both Strickland prongs required)
- Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 287 Conn. 792 (authoritative statements on prejudice standard)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 585 (related discussion of plea-stage prejudice standard)
- Taft v. Commissioner of Correction, 159 Conn. App. 537 (standards for counsel investigation and strategic decisions)