Carraway v. Commissioner of Correction
2013 WL 3804832
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- petitioner Wilton Carraway was convicted by plea to assault in the first degree following a violent incident involving his ex-girlfriend and her male companion, Connolly
- he challenged his counsel’s effectiveness for not fully investigating Connolly’s injuries or retaining an expert to argue the injuries could be caused by something other than a dangerous instrument
- the habeas court applied Copas v. Commissioner of Correction’s prejudice standard for plea-based ineffective assistance claims
- Carraway contended that lack of medical-records access and absence of an expert testimony rendered his plea involuntary
- the plea canvass informed by the court described Connolly’s injuries as serious physical injury and the potential for a dangerous instrument
- the habeas petition was denied and Carraway appealed, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of due process; the court reversed and remanded
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court used the correct prejudice standard | Carraway | Watson/State | No; standard was incorrect and must be reconsidered on remand |
| Whether counsel’s failure to investigate injuries and seek expert testimony prejudiced the plea decision | Carraway | Watson | Prejudice analysis requires reconsideration; potential for different outcome at trial must be assessed on remand |
| Whether Hill v. Lockhart governs prejudice in plea-based ineffectiveness claims over Copas | Carraway | State | Hill controls prejudice analysis; Copas adopted but inconsistent with Hill; remand for proper Hill-based analysis |
| Whether the plea would have differed if actual injury severity and evidence from an expert were known | Carraway | Watson | Remand to determine if different plea advice would have been given based on new evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice in plea negotiations depends on likelihood of trial outcome; guidance for plea voluntariness)
- Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139 (Conn. 1995) (Hill standard adapted for Copas; prejudice requires showing undiscovered evidence or defenses would likely have changed outcome)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (see above (reiteration))
- Miller v. Champion, 262 F.3d 1066 (10th Cir. 2001) (credibility and outcome analysis in plea-related prejudice)
- Hooper v. Garraghty, 845 F.2d 471 (4th Cir. 1988) (post-plea credibility considerations in prejudice assessment)
- Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 287 Conn. 792 (Conn. 2008) (recognizes Hill framework in Connecticut context)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 585 (Conn. 2008) ( Connecticut application of Hill/Strickland standards)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 (Conn. 2008) (connects Hill framework to state cases)