Cator v. Commissioner of Correction
181 Conn. App. 167
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Petitioner Frantz Cator was convicted after a 1997 trial of murder (as an accessory), conspiracy to commit murder, felony murder, kidnapping, and related firearm offenses; he received a lengthy prison term later reduced. The victim was abducted from his residence and fatally shot with a gun that belonged to Cator; Cator drove the vehicle in which the victim was taken and later returned to the scene.
- On direct appeal the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed most convictions but remanded to vacate a firearm-related conviction and to merge conspiracy convictions. See State v. Cator (Sup. Ct. decision underlying facts).
- Cator filed multiple habeas petitions; this appeal arises from denial of his fourth amended habeas petition, which alleged appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise (1) instructional error on intent and (2) insufficiency of the evidence for murder (accessory), conspiracy, and felony murder; he also claimed a standalone due process violation based on the instruction.
- At the habeas trial the court heard testimony from trial counsel, appellate counsel (Zitser), the prosecutor, and defense experts; the habeas court denied relief, concluding appellate counsel’s choices were reasonable and the due process claim was procedurally defaulted.
- The habeas court also denied certification to appeal; the Appellate Court held the denial was not an abuse of discretion and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Cator's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court abused discretion in denying certification to appeal | Denial improper because claims raise debatable issues meriting review | Denial proper because claims are not debatable among jurists of reason | Denial affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising instructional error on intent | Trial judge read full statutory definition of "intent" (including conduct-focused language) for crimes requiring specific intent, which could mislead jury; appellate counsel should have appealed | Charge read as a general definition; court repeatedly gave proper specific-intent instructions and provided written element handout; raising the claim would be weak | Appellate counsel’s strategic choice reasonable; no deficient performance |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing insufficiency of evidence for murder as accessory and conspiracy | Evidence insufficient to prove requisite intent and agreement; conviction inconsistent with trial court’s acquittal on capital felony | Evidence supported inferences of dual intent, aiding, and agreement: Cator drove victim, heard shot, gun recovered from his vehicle and matched murder weapon | Counsel not ineffective; evidence sufficient, so claim lacked merit |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing insufficiency for felony murder | Alleged shooter (Johnson) was not a participant in kidnapping or did not kill in furtherance of kidnapping | Kidnapping is a continuing crime; jury could infer Johnson joined kidnapping during its course and was supplied the weapon by Cator | Counsel not ineffective; sufficient evidence to support felony murder conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (permits review of unpreserved constitutional claims under a four‑part test)
- State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785 (Conn. 2001) (direct‑appeal opinion setting out facts and partial remand)
- State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn. App. 673 (Conn. App. 2000) (held jury may have been misled when full statutory definition of intent was read)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standards for appellate review when habeas court denies certification to appeal)