230 Conn.App. 145
Conn. App. Ct.2025Background
- Robert Dearing was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child; the victim, K, was a child with pervasive developmental disorder and was a family friend.
- The case hinged largely on the credibility of K, who described sexual abuse by Dearing; there was no physical evidence and K's developmental disorder affected proceedings.
- Dearing previously exhausted a direct appeal and an initial habeas petition on other grounds (plea offer issues), both of which were unsuccessful.
- In his second habeas petition, Dearing alleged ineffective assistance of his criminal trial counsel, appellate counsel, and prior habeas counsel for failing to properly challenge the credibility of K and obtain/disclose certain evidence.
- The habeas court denied relief, finding no deficient performance or prejudice by any of Dearing’s counsel; Dearing then appealed on certification.
- The appellate court affirmed, after detailed review of the habeas findings and arguments about trial strategy, expert use, and handling of confidential records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance by trial counsel for not using child abuse expert | Smith failed to consult/engage an expert who could challenge K’s credibility and the prosecution’s narrative | Smith’s decision not to use an expert was a reasonable trial strategy, and based on Dearing's instructions and resources | No constitutionally deficient performance; no prejudice shown; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance by trial counsel for not obtaining K’s medical records | Smith did not press for K’s confidential records' disclosure or admission to impeach her credibility | Smith properly sought in camera review; petitioner failed to show further effort would succeed or affect outcome | No deficiency or prejudice; trial court followed correct procedure |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to/state expert testimony | Smith failed to object to or strike certain bolstering testimony from the state's expert | Smith made reasonable, strategic decisions in handling expert testimony (including own hypotheticals/cross) | No deficient performance; strategic decisions were reasonable |
| Ineffective assistance by appellate counsel for not raising trial court error on confidential records | Grogins should have appealed on trial court’s refusal to release K’s records for use by defense | Chose strongest issues for appeal, no clear error or basis for record challenge | Not deficient; reasonable strategic decisions |
| Ineffective assistance by prior habeas counsel for not raising above claims | Prior habeas counsel failed to raise ineffective assistance claims against trial/appellate counsel | No viable claims against trial/appellate counsel, so no ineffective assistance | No basis for relief; claim fails as above claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (sets the standard for ineffective assistance of counsel—deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Bruno, 197 Conn. 326 (Conn. 1985) (discusses procedure for in camera review of psychiatric records)
- State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (Conn. 1984) (sets procedure for obtaining privileged witness records)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (Conn. 1992) (establishes habeas as remedy for ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel)