152 Conn.App. 669
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 2006 Philip Tate was shot and killed outside a Bridgeport bar; Luis Diaz was arrested, tried, and convicted of murder, carrying a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a pistol; no physical evidence or weapon was recovered.
- The state’s case relied on three eyewitnesses (McIntosh, Ortiz, Jefferson) who implicated Diaz; defense presented an alibi witness (girlfriend McPhearson).
- Ortiz testified at trial that he had been promised no benefit; months later the prosecutor concurred in a sentence modification reducing Ortiz’s sentence.
- Diaz unsuccessfully appealed his conviction to the Connecticut Supreme Court; he later filed a third amended habeas petition raising ineffective assistance of trial counsel and Brady claims.
- After a three‑day evidentiary hearing, the habeas court denied the petition and refused certification to appeal; Diaz sought review of that denial in this appellate matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for failing to call third‑party culpability witnesses (Waiters, Cooper, Browne) | Diaz: trial counsel was deficient for not presenting witnesses who would create reasonable doubt/point to a third party | State: witnesses had no direct connection to the crime; counsel’s decision to omit them was not deficient or prejudicial | Denied — habeas court did not abuse discretion; Diaz failed to show deficiency or prejudice under Strickland |
| Brady claim for nondisclosure of an agreement with Ortiz | Diaz: prosecutor’s trial statement that Ortiz would receive no benefit conflicted with later concurrence in Ortiz’s sentence modification, showing a suppressed agreement/implied deal | State: no evidence of an agreement; prosecutor only told Ortiz that a judge might consider any request; concurrence in modification did not prove a pretrial deal | Denied — habeas court’s factual finding that no agreement existed was not clearly erroneous; no Brady violation proved |
| Motion for rectification and Floyd evidentiary hearing to add Ortiz sentencing transcript | Diaz: transcript of Ortiz’s sentence modification should be added and trigger a Floyd hearing because it bears on Brady claim | State: rectification cannot be used to introduce new evidence not presented at the habeas hearing; Diaz knew of the modification earlier and failed to present it | Denied — habeas court properly refused to accept late evidence and no entitlement to a postjudgment Floyd hearing |
| Certification to appeal denial by habeas court | Diaz: issues are debatable among jurists and warrant appeal | State: issues lack merit; habeas findings were supported by the record | Denied — appellant failed to meet the abuse‑of‑discretion standard for certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecutorial duty to disclose exculpatory and impeachment evidence)
- State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 (underlying criminal trial and conviction summarized)
- State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (permits posttrial evidentiary hearing when new, unascertainable Brady evidence arises)
- State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218 (articulates elements of a Brady claim)