Collins v. Commissioner of Correction, 202 Conn.App. 789

Collins was convicted of felony murder and first‑degree robbery and sentenced to 45 years after a jury trial. He later filed a habeas petition alleging counsel conflicts and ineffective assistance.
Collins’s family retained private counsel Aaron Romano for a $25,000 retainer; the written agreement stated the family would pay any additional costs for experts or investigators. Romano sought state funding for experts under Ake; the trial courts denied those expense motions. Romano did not advance his own funds and no experts testified at trial.
Collins alleged at habeas that Romano had an actual conflict of interest (financial incentive not to retain experts) and that Romano failed to investigate or call a potential eyewitness, Teara Rosario.
The habeas court denied relief: it treated the conflict claim as procedurally defaulted and rejected it on the merits, and it found counsel deficient for failing to locate Rosario but held that Collins suffered no prejudice because Rosario likely would not have cooperated at trial.
On appeal this court held the conflict claim was not procedurally defaulted (habeas was the proper forum) but affirmed the denial of relief because there was no actual conflict and, although counsel’s investigation was deficient, Collins could not show prejudice from Rosario’s absence.

Issue	Collins’ Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether Collins’ conflict‑of‑interest claim is procedurally defaulted	Must be decided on habeas; conflict claims require evidentiary development and were not raised at trial or direct appeal	Collins did not preserve the claim at trial or on direct appeal; Wainwright cause‑and‑prejudice applies	Not procedurally defaulted; habeas was the correct forum because the record was inadequate on direct appeal
Whether Romano had an actual conflict by not advancing retainer funds to hire experts	Fee arrangement gave Romano a financial incentive to avoid hiring experts, breaching loyalty	Fee agreement placed payment responsibility on family; counsel has no duty to personally finance experts; theoretical conflicts insufficient	No actual conflict; counsel’s decision not to advance funds did not breach loyalty or create an actual conflict under Cuyler and related authority
Whether counsel’s failure to investigate/call eyewitness Rosario was prejudicial ineffective assistance	Rosario’s testimony would have corroborated Collins’ duress/limited role and could have changed the outcome	Rosario was unlikely to come forward at trial; her habeas testimony was questionable and the prejudice is speculative	Counsel was deficient for not employing an investigator, but no prejudice: habeas court’s credibility finding that Rosario would not have cooperated was not clearly erroneous, so no reasonable probability of a different result

Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (state must provide psychiatric expert where defendant’s mental state is likely significant)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (actual conflict requires showing specific instances of compromise of interests)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance plus prejudice)
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (cause‑and‑prejudice standard for procedural default)
Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465 (9th Cir.) (no Sixth Amendment duty for counsel to personally finance client’s experts)
Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.) (theoretical conflicts from funding arrangements typically do not establish actual conflict)
United States v. Stitt, 552 F.3d 345 (flat fee with family obligation to pay costs does not create an actual conflict)
State v. Cheatham, 296 Kan. 417, 292 P.3d 318 (distinguishable: unpaid flat fee in a capital case produced conflicts because counsel lacked realistic prospect of payment and resources)