Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction, 171 Conn. App. 758

Background

In 1994 Anson Clinton was murdered; Beth Ann Carpenter was convicted at trial as an accessory/conspirator after evidence that she solicited Haiman Clein to arrange the killing. She was sentenced to life without parole and a concurrent 20‑year term for conspiracy.
Carpenter pursued a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Attorneys Keefe and Knight) on two main grounds: (1) failure to pursue/advise about plea negotiations and (2) failure to lay a proper foundation to admit expert testimony on "codependency syndrome."
At trial the prosecution emphasized Carpenter’s post‑murder continued intimate relationship with Clein as circumstantial evidence of intent; defense sought to introduce Dr. Robert Novelly to explain codependent behavior to counter that inference.
No formal plea offer from the state was ever conveyed; Carpenter had repeatedly and in writing instructed counsel she would not accept a plea (stating she would refuse even a five‑year offer).
The trial court conducted a Porter hearing, found the methodology behind codependency testimony scientifically acceptable but excluded Novelly’s testimony for lack of foundational proof that the parties had the requisite personalities for a codependent diagnosis; the Connecticut Supreme Court later clarified the foundation required on direct appeal.
The habeas court credited prosecution and counsel testimony about Carpenter’s refusal to plead and found counsel’s efforts on the expert testimony were reasonable given the novelty of codependency evidence; it denied habeas relief. The appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue/advise plea negotiations	Carpenter: counsel should have sought a plea despite her stated refusal and failed to advise her of benefits and likely sentence	State/counsel: no plea offer existed; Carpenter repeatedly and in writing refused any plea and counsel acted per her instructions	Held: No deficient performance or prejudice — counsel not required to seek plea when client adamantly refuses and no offer was communicated
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to establish foundation to admit Novelly’s codependency expert testimony	Carpenter: counsel were unprepared and failed to lay proper foundational evidence for Novelly	State/court: codependency was a novel theory; counsel reasonably analogized to battered‑woman/child‑syndrome foundations; exclusion was a discrete evidentiary ruling, not counsel incompetence	Held: No deficient performance (reasonable strategy given novelty) and no prejudice — even if admitted, testimony would not likely have changed verdict

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective‑assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (no constitutional right to plea bargain)
Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (counsel must communicate formal plea offers; ineffective assistance can arise from failing to convey or properly advise about an offer)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (ineffective advice about plea offers can cause prejudice when acceptance would have led to a better outcome)
State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785 (direct appeal opinion addressing facts and treatment of codependency evidence)
State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (adopts Daubert‑style threshold for scientific/expert evidence admissibility in Connecticut)