Foote v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn.App. 559

Petitioner Eugene Foote was convicted after a jury trial of first‑degree burglary and first‑degree unlawful restraint and sentenced to 20 years; his direct appeal was affirmed.
He filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate/present an alibi and to investigate mental health; counsel was appointed for the habeas proceeding.
Habeas counsel moved to withdraw under Anders/Pascucci procedures; the trial judge denied that motion because counsel’s investigation of mental‑health issues was insufficiently explained, so counsel remained appointed.
On the day of the habeas trial, Foote orally requested new habeas counsel, claiming counsel had not reviewed his medical records or met with him; counsel said he had met recently and intended to present testimony.
The habeas court denied the request for new counsel after limited inquiry, conducted the habeas trial, and denied the habeas petition; the court also denied certification to appeal. Foote appealed, asserting abuse of discretion and plain error in the court’s handling of his request for new counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of certification was an abuse of discretion because court failed to inquire adequately into request for new habeas counsel	Foote: court abused discretion by not fully investigating his oral request for new counsel at trial	State: Foote did not present the new‑counsel claim in his petition for certification; therefore he cannot attack denial of certification on that ground	Dismissed: claim not preserved in certification petition; cannot claim abuse of discretion on an issue not first presented to habeas court
Whether denial of request for new counsel was plain error	Foote: even if unpreserved, the court’s failure to investigate was plain error affecting fairness	State: habeas court adequately inquired; petitioner offered only bare assertions and no exceptional circumstances to justify last‑minute substitution	Denied: inquiry was adequate; petitioner failed to show obvious, harmful error or exceptional circumstances

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (permissible counsel withdrawal when no nonfrivolous issues exist)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (two‑pronged test for appellate review after denial of certification in habeas cases)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (adoption/clarification of certification review standards)
State v. Turner, 133 Conn. App. 812 (2012) (trial court’s discretion in evaluating last‑minute requests for new counsel)
State v. David M., 109 Conn. App. 172 (2008) (request to replace counsel on eve of trial requires substantial reason/exceptional circumstances)
Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (2006) (plain‑error doctrine applied to unpreserved claims after denial of certification)