141 Conn. App. 251
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Brown was convicted in 1999 of arson in the first degree and conspiracy to commit arson in the first degree; he represented himself at trial after withdrawal of public defenders when found ineligible for their services.
- In his first postconviction petition (2002), Brown claimed ineffective assistance by trial and appellate counsel among other issues; petition denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In his second postconviction habeas petition, Brown alleged first-habeas counsel failed to raise a claim that he was denied the right to counsel at trial and that appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising that claim.
- The habeas court denied relief on the grounds of lack of prejudice due to procedural default; Brown appealed.
- The court held that Brown failed to show cause and prejudice to overcome default, applying the cause-and-prejudice standard from Wainwright v. Sykes and its Connecticut applications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether first-habeas counsel’s performance was ineffective | Brown | Miller’s performance not prejudicial | No prejudice; not ineffective |
| Whether Brown procedurally defaulted by not prosecuting his statutory appeal | Brown had good cause | Default valid; no good cause shown | Default upheld; no relief |
| Whether cause and prejudice standard applies to these defaults | Applicable to argue for review | Applicable standard bars review | Cause and prejudice applied; relief denied |
| Whether the court correctly applied Strickland in the prior-habeas context | Prior counsel ineffective for not raising claims | No effectiveness established | Strickland not satisfied; no reversal |
| Whether the petitioner can prevail on any unraised claim | Claims could have altered outcome | Default forecloses | No reasonable probability of reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (S. Ct. 1977) (cause and prejudice standard in habeas review for defaults)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 218 Conn. 403 (1991) (adopts cause and prejudice standard in Connecticut)
- Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124 (1993) (application of cause and prejudice to direct-appeal defaults)
- Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377 () (immunity/privilege concerns; not controlling here)
- Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17 () (burden of choosing rights does not invalidate process)
- McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 () (dissent on Simmons rationale; burdens of choice)
- Dennis v. Commissioner of Correction, 134 Conn. App. 520 (2012) (adequate and effective assistance at all critical stages)
- State v. Flanagan, 293 Conn. 406 (2009) (sixth amendment self-representation right)
- Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 133 Conn. App. 96 (2012) (prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims in habeas)