187 Conn. App. 414
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Petitioner Robert Buie was convicted of multiple sexual assault-related offenses; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Buie).
- After his conviction, Buie filed successive habeas petitions; Paul Kraus was appointed as his first habeas counsel and later the petitioner challenged Kraus’s effectiveness in a subsequent habeas proceeding.
- Primary claim: Kraus was ineffective for failing to challenge trial counsel Errol Skyers’ performance on multiple grounds (e.g., evidentiary exclusions, photographic array, hearsay, jury instructions, prosecutorial argument).
- Evidence at trial and at habeas showed the victim was assaulted by two people: DNA from a dildo in Buie’s apartment matched the victim; victim’s vaginal swabs contained DNA consistent with Buie; duct tape from the victim’s apartment was similar to duct tape seized from Buie’s apartment. Victim identified assailants by voice; a codefendant confessed and implicated Buie.
- Habeas court (Oliver, J.) denied relief, finding Buie failed to overcome presumption of competent representation and could not show prejudice from counsel’s alleged failures; the court granted certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Buie’s habeas counsel and trial counsel constitutionally ineffective? | Kraus failed to properly litigate Skyers’ alleged deficiencies (e.g., failed objections, evidentiary challenges), producing a Lozada claim on habeas counsel. | Respondent: even if counsel erred, overwhelming evidence of guilt means Buie cannot show Strickland prejudice. | Court held Buie failed to show prejudice under Strickland/Lozada; habeas and trial counsel were not shown to have rendered ineffective assistance sufficient to undermine confidence in the verdict. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (Conn. 1992) (approved habeas on a habeas claims and requires showing ineffectiveness of both habeas and trial counsel)
- State v. Buie, 129 Conn. App. 777 (Conn. App.) (direct appeal affirming convictions; factual findings regarding assault and evidence)
- Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 178 Conn. App. 299 (Conn. App.) (describes the difficult burden for successive habeas claims)
- Adkins v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 139 (Conn. App.) (discusses Lozada framework and Strickland applied twice)