174 Conn. App. 821
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioner Clinton S. was charged with first‑ and third‑degree sexual assault by his stepdaughter for alleged conduct between July 2003 and January 2005; at trial the victim testified the assaults occurred “basically all the time.”
- Defense sought to attack the victim’s credibility and motive to fabricate; during jury deliberations (third day) petitioner entered an Alford plea to the two charges and was sentenced to an effective 20‑year term (execution suspended after 15 years) plus probation.
- At issue in habeas proceedings were two principal ineffective‑assistance claims: (1) trial counsel failed to present evidence of a conversation between the victim and a coordinator, Garcia, in which Garcia told the victim the petitioner was a registered sex offender and could go to jail; (2) counsel failed to investigate/present employment records for petitioner and his wife M to show lack of opportunity to be alone with the victim.
- Trial counsel testified the decision not to introduce the Garcia conversation was strategic because it risked opening the door to evidence of petitioner’s prior criminal history and sex‑offender status (previously excluded by motion in limine).
- The habeas court denied relief, finding counsel’s choices were strategic and that employment records would not have undermined the victim’s testimony (M’s live testimony corroborated opportunities for petitioner to be alone with the victim).
- Petitioner sought certification to appeal; the habeas court denied certification and the appellate court dismissed the appeal, concluding the claims were not debatable among jurists of reason.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not presenting the victim–Garcia conversation as an alternative explanation (fabrication after being told petitioner would go to jail) | Clinton: the conversation would show a motive to fabricate and likely would have prevented his Alford plea | Commissioner: trial counsel reasonably declined because the conversation mentioned petitioner’s prior convictions/sex‑offender status and risked admitting that damaging history | Court: counsel’s choice was reasonable trial strategy; no deficient performance shown |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present petitioner’s employment records to show lack of opportunity | Clinton: records would have shown he was often away when victim came home and undermined “all the time” allegation, so he would not have pled | Commissioner: available records and testimony showed numerous opportunities for petitioner to be alone with victim; records would not have aided defense | Court: counsel’s investigation and decision were reasonable; records were of limited value and would not have changed the outcome |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain M.’s employment records and whether the habeas court applied the correct prejudice standard (Strickland‑Hill) | Clinton: habeas court used Strickland rather than Strickland‑Hill; applying correct standard, there is a reasonable probability he would not have pled | Commissioner: habeas court’s substantive analysis used the correct Hill inquiry despite a misphrasing; evidence would not have altered outcome | Court: acknowledged the misphrasing but found habeas court applied the correct Hill analysis in substance and that petitioner was not prejudiced |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test for trials)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (modifies prejudice inquiry where conviction follows guilty plea)
- Norton v. Commissioner of Correction, 132 Conn. App. 850 (discusses Strickland‑Hill application and prejudice inquiry)
- Watson v. Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn. App. 160 (strategic‑decision deference to counsel)
- Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 557 (presumption that counsel’s conduct is within reasonable professional assistance)