Brown v. Commissioner of Correction
27 A.3d 33
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- In 2004 Brown was convicted, after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the third degree and related offenses stemming from a 2002 incident.
- The trial court imposed five years' imprisonment, suspended after three, followed by a ten-year probation with special conditions.
- Brown's direct appeal resulted in affirmance of the conviction (2006).
- On September 23, 2008, Brown filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel Scott Sandler.
- The habeas court rejected Brown's claims; certification to appeal was granted and the appellate court reviewed the judgment.
- On appeal, Brown challenged five aspects of Sandler's performance during pretrial investigation and trial, including decisions about witnesses and strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to investigate relationship with R | Sandler failed to investigate ongoing victim–officer relationship. | Investigation was limited; argument that further inquiry would add nothing. | No deficient performance; investigation collateral, no prejudice. |
| Cross-examination of victim about relationship with R | Cross-examination did not adequately probe the relationship to impeach credibility. | Cross-examination was vigorous and covered relevant topics. | Cross-examination adequate; no prejudice shown. |
| Failure to present D (R's former wife) testimony | D's testimony could have aided defense. | D's potential bias and collateral relevance undermined impact; not likely to help. | No substantial impact; failure not prejudicial. |
| Failure to present testimony from private investigator Light | Light could cast doubt on victim’s account. | Light's findings were not probative and strategy supported omission. | Strategic choice not to present evidence was sound; no prejudice. |
| Advice not to testify at underlying trial | Sandler inadequately advised Brown about testifying. | Advice was thoughtful, based on evidence and police investigation deficiencies. | Advising not to testify was reasonable trial strategy; no ineffective assistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 830 (Conn. 2009) (establishes mixed question of law and fact)
- Holley v. Commissioner of Correction, 62 Conn.App. 170 (Conn. App. 2001) (manages evidentiary burden on claim of deficiency)
- Stepney v. Commissioner of Correction, 129 Conn.App. 364 (Conn. App. 2011) (recognizes strong deference to trial strategy)