183 Conn. App. 838
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Marcello Edwards was convicted of first‑degree assault and had his probation revoked after a 2011 stabbing; sentenced to 20 years (five mandatory) plus 37 months consecutive for probation revocation.
- Trial counsel Raul Davila attended competency hearings and the criminal trial but conducted virtually no cross‑examination of the state’s witnesses (victim, her two children, treating physician, most investigators) and asked only a narrow question of one officer.
- The petitioner was frequently removed from the courtroom for disruptive behavior and was absent for much of his trial; counsel claimed this hindered defense presentation.
- Davila declined to investigate or present the petitioner’s alibi witnesses despite having reviewed prior investigator statements supporting the alibi and despite those witnesses being available at trial.
- At the habeas hearing, Davila testified he believed the evidence was overwhelming and that some cases have no defense; the habeas court found his choices strategic and denied relief under Strickland.
- The appellate court concluded Davila’s utter lack of adversarial testing required application of United States v. Cronic, presumed prejudice, reversed the habeas denial, vacated the conviction and probation revocation, and ordered a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s failures warrant presumed prejudice under Cronic | Davila failed to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing (no cross‑examination; no investigation of alibi); prejudice should be presumed | Habeas court: counsel’s omissions were strategic; petitioner did not show how cross‑examination or alibi investigation would have helped (Strickland analysis) | Reversed: Cronic applies; counsel’s conduct was not reasonable strategy and prejudice is presumed |
| Whether habeas court erred by addressing only Strickland | Petitioner argued Cronic in briefs and at oral argument; appellate review appropriate | Respondent did not claim Cronic was unpreserved; habeas court analyzed only Strickland | Appellate court reviewed and resolved Cronic claim on merits |
| Whether failure to seek additional competency evaluation prejudiced petitioner | Petitioner argued counsel should have requested further competency testing | Habeas court: no proof additional evaluation would have produced favorable result | Appellate opinion did not need to resolve Strickland claims because Cronic relief was granted |
| Whether failure to investigate and present alibi required relief under Strickland | Alibi witnesses’ statements were in file and available; failure to investigate was deficient and could have changed outcome | Habeas court: petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome | Appellate court found overall lack of adversarial testing (Cronic) made detailed Strickland prejudice inquiry unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (prejudice may be presumed when counsel fails to subject the prosecution’s case to meaningful adversarial testing)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and actual prejudice)
- Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, 319 Conn. 548 (2015) (discusses Strickland and Cronic relationship and preservation issues)
- Newland v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 664 (2016) (discusses irrebuttable presumption of prejudice when right to counsel is denied)
- State v. Frye, 224 Conn. 253 (1992) (denial of counsel is structural error mandating reversal)