Doan v. Commissioner of Correction, 193 Conn.App. 263

In 2011 Doan forced entry into a home where he tied up a woman and her 13‑year‑old son, extorted cash and checks, and was later arrested after the victims escaped and called police.
Doan pled guilty in 2013 to home invasion and two counts of first‑degree kidnapping; he agreed to a 10–25 year exposure and was sentenced to 20 years plus five years special parole after the court characterized his conduct as extremely violent and sociopathic.
At sentencing counsel submitted a detailed mitigation memorandum, victim‑letters, family letters, and argued Doan acted out of desperation and severe life stressors; Doan did not file a direct appeal.
In 2017 Doan filed an amended habeas petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate Doan’s mental health or retain a forensic psychologist to aid mitigation at sentencing.
The habeas court found counsel reasonably relied on Doan’s and his family’s representations that he had no history of mental illness, credited counsel’s mitigation work, denied the habeas petition and denied certification to appeal.
The appellate court held the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification (the issue was close) but affirmed on the merits, concluding counsel’s performance was not deficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Doan)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion	Denial was improper because Doan raised a close, non‑frivolous ineffective assistance claim worthy of appellate review	Habeas court reasonably denied certification because it found counsel’s performance adequate	Appellate court: abuse of discretion — the claim was a close question and deserved encouragement to proceed
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not investigating mental health or retaining a forensic psychologist	Counsel unreasonably failed to investigate possible mental illness and obtain an expert who could have supported mitigation	Counsel reasonably relied on Doan’s and his family’s statements denying mental‑health history, conducted mitigation investigation, and made strategic choices; no deficient performance	Appellate court: no deficient performance; counsel’s investigation and mitigation strategy were reasonable, so habeas denial affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (procedural standard for obtaining appellate review from denial of certification)
Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U.S. 374 (counsel must investigate mitigating evidence when obvious and likely to be used against defendant)
Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547 (counsel owes duty to investigate material in prosecution file suggesting other culpable parties)
Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction, 329 Conn. 1 (reasonableness of counsel’s investigation assessed objectively; strategic limits may be reasonable)
Copas v. Warden, 30 Conn. App. 677 (deficient performance where counsel failed to identify and present key inconsistencies and mitigation)
Siano v. Warden, 31 Conn. App. 94 (counsel deficient for failing to secure identified medical evidence central to defense)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to counsel; high bar for proving ineffective assistance)
Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (counsel’s investigation obligations and reliance on defendant’s representations)