Charles v. Commissioner of Correction, 206 Conn.App. 341

On Sept. 25, 2004, Dennis Faniel was shot and later died; Jared Charles was tried and convicted of murder, weapons offenses, and drug possession. Police recovered a .38 revolver and a gray shirt with cocaine; no nine‑millimeter was located.
Witness Natasha Walker saw Charles run from the scene holding a gun; Jayquan (present at the scene) fired at Charles after the victim was shot. Charles gave a signed police statement and testified at trial denying he had a gun or was the shooter.
Trial counsel Walter Hussey investigated (reviewed discovery, visited the scene), reviewed Charles’s statement, and concluded the statement lacked key self‑defense elements (no admission of possessing a gun or fearing for his life).
Hussey pursued a third‑party culpability defense focused on undermining Jayquan’s and Walker’s credibility to create reasonable doubt that Jayquan, not Charles, fired the fatal shot.
Charles later filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance for (1) failing to investigate self‑defense and (2) failing to raise self‑defense at trial; he claimed he told Hussey he had a nine‑mm and fired in self‑defense. The habeas court denied relief; the appellate court affirmed, finding counsel’s investigation and strategy reasonable. Some habeas factual findings that Hussey was unaware Charles had a gun were found clearly erroneous but harmless.

Issue	Charles' Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s pretrial investigation was deficient for not investigating self‑defense	Hussey had a duty to investigate self‑defense given case facts and Charles’ alleged disclosure that he had a gun and used it	Hussey reasonably relied on Charles’ signed statement and discovery, which lacked self‑defense components; further investigation could be fruitless	Counsel’s investigation was reasonable; no deficient performance shown
Whether counsel was ineffective for not asserting self‑defense at trial	Hussey should have asserted self‑defense instead of third‑party culpability	Pursuing third‑party culpability was a plausible, strategic means to undermine the state’s witnesses and create reasonable doubt	Strategic choice to pursue third‑party culpability was objectively reasonable; no deficiency
Whether clearly erroneous habeas findings (that counsel was unaware Charles had a gun and Charles admitted not telling counsel) required relief	Those findings were erroneous and could affect the ineffective‑assistance analysis	Even if findings were erroneous, the error was harmless because record still supports that counsel was not deficient	Findings were clearly erroneous but harmless; judgment affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (2012) (guidance on counsel’s duty to investigate and deference to strategic choices)
McClam v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 432 (2006) (no ineffectiveness where defendant denied being shooter and counsel declined self‑defense theory)
State v. Charles, 134 Conn. App. 242 (2012) (direct appeal affirming convictions; factual background of shooting)
State v. Silva, 65 Conn. App. 234 (2001) (reasonableness of not pursuing self‑defense when defendant maintained he was not shooter)
Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction, 332 Conn. 615 (2019) (strong presumption that counsel’s trial strategy decisions are reasonable)