Dyous v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services, 151 A.3d 1247

In 1983 Anthony Dyous hijacked a bus, was tried in a nonadversarial bench proceeding, found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, and committed for a maximum of 25 years; custody later transferred to the Psychiatric Security Review Board and Dyous remained confined beyond 25 years.
Dyous filed habeas corpus alleging (1) his election to pursue the insanity defense (plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect) was not knowing and voluntary because he was told he could not be confined beyond 25 years, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to research and advise him about possible extended commitment.
The habeas court denied relief, concluding (a) the plea voluntariness claim was procedurally barred under Teague and by this court's decision in Duperry v. Solnit, and (b) Dyous failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.
On appeal this court assumed, without deciding, that Duperry v. Solnit might not have resolved the voluntariness issue but held Teague nevertheless barred retroactive application of a rule extending Boykin to insanity-election pleas; the court also affirmed the habeas court's credibility findings and denial of ineffective assistance.
The majority rejected reliance on the federal district court opinion Duperry v. Kirk, which had applied Boykin to insanity-election pleas, finding that precedent at the time of Dyous's 1984 plea did not clearly require such an extension.

Issue	Dyous' Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect must be knowing and voluntary under Boykin such that habeas relief is available	Boykin's due process requirement for guilty pleas extends to insanity-election pleas; plea was not knowing because Dyous believed confinement capped at 25 years	No established precedent required Boykin's extension to insanity-election pleas in 1984; applying it now would announce a new rule barred by Teague	Denied — Teague bars retroactive creation/application of a new rule extending Boykin to insanity-election pleas; watershed exception not satisfied
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to research/advise about possible confinement beyond 25 years	Kelley failed to inform Dyous that commitment could be extended; had Dyous known, he would not have elected the insanity route	Dyous failed to prove counsel’s advice was deficient or that he was prejudiced; record and witness credibility do not support misadvice	Denied — habeas court's adverse credibility findings sustained; Dyous did not meet Strickland's performance or prejudice prongs

Duperry v. Solnit, 261 Conn. 309 (Conn. 2002) (state court addressed canvass and Teague question for insanity-election pleas)
Duperry v. Kirk, 563 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Conn. 2008) (federal district court applied Boykin to insanity-election pleas and granted relief)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (guilty pleas must be knowing and voluntary under due process)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (U.S. 1989) (new procedural rules generally not retroactive on collateral review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484 (U.S. 1990) (clarifies Teague new-rule analysis)
Thiersaint v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 89 (Conn. 2015) (state court describes adopting Teague framework and new-rule analysis)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (example of a rule later analyzed for retroactivity under Teague)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1963) (example of a watershed procedural rule)