Chance v. Commissioner of Correction, 184 Conn. App. 524

Petitioner Noel Chance was convicted after a jury trial for, inter alia, second‑degree kidnapping and related offenses arising from an August 11, 2007 incident following a 14‑year‑old jogger.
At trial counsel and the prosecutor agreed on a kidnapping jury instruction that tracked State v. Salamon, decided one month earlier; the instruction allowed the jury to consider whether any assault was an underlying crime that made restraint incidental to that assault.
Chance later filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) acquiescing to the Salamon‑based kidnapping instruction and (2) failing to move to suppress statements he made at his home before receiving Miranda warnings; he also alleged a failure to challenge seizure of his truck (the court found that claim meritless).
The habeas court held an evidentiary hearing, found counsel’s choices were deliberate and reasonable, and denied the petition and certification to appeal.
On appeal from the denial of certification, the Appellate Court concluded the habeas court did not abuse its discretion and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Chance's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by agreeing to a Salamon‑based kidnapping instruction that referenced an underlying assault	Counsel should not have accepted an instruction applying newly decided Salamon; including uncharged assault was improper and risky	Counsel’s decision was deliberate, reasonable, promoted an avenue for acquittal, and Salamon was controlling precedent	Counsel’s performance was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; habeas court properly rejected the claim
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress incriminating statements made at petitioner’s home before Miranda warnings	Petitioner was in custody when officers questioned him at his door; statements should have been suppressed	The encounter did not amount to custody for Miranda purposes; any suppression motion would have been meritless; strategic to forgo it	Habeas court found no deficient performance; a reasonable person in petitioner’s circumstances would not have felt restrained to a degree associated with formal arrest

State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (redefined when restraints incidental to another crime do not constitute kidnapping)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (standard for appellate review when habeas court denies certification to appeal)
Spiotti v. Wolcott, 326 Conn. 190 (discussion of stare decisis and importance of binding precedent)