Freitag v. Commissioner of Correction, AC47920

The petitioner was charged with murder, attempted murder, and first degree assault after he shot two victims from a vehicle, killing one and paralyzing the other. 1
Before trial, the state offered a plea deal, and the petitioner initially rejected it but then pleaded guilty during the plea canvass. 2
The petitioner later filed a habeas petition alleging that trial counsel O'Reilly ineffectively advised him about Baxter's willingness to testify and the viability of self-defense. 3
This court previously reversed in part and ordered a new trial on the ineffective assistance claims tied to Baxter's testimony and the related plea withdrawal issue. 4
On remand, the habeas court credited testimony that Baxter was willing to testify, found O'Reilly's contrary advice deficient, and granted the petition in part while denying the claim against replacement counsel Pattis. 5
The respondent appealed, conceding deficient performance on the Baxter advice but disputing prejudice and the self-defense ruling. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether incorrect advice about Baxter's willingness to testify prejudiced the plea decision 7	Freitag would have rejected the plea and gone to trial with Baxter's testimony.	No prejudice because Freitag later did not move to withdraw the plea.	Freitag was prejudiced; he would have gone to trial absent the bad advice. 8
Whether failure to move to withdraw the guilty plea defeated prejudice 9	The later failure to withdraw the plea did not erase the earlier coercive advice.	Not seeking withdrawal showed he would not have insisted on trial.	No; the habeas court's credibility findings controlled and no waiver/default ruling barred relief. 10
Whether advice about self-defense was deficient 11	O'Reilly unreasonably downplayed self-defense and Baxter's corroboration.	The self-defense advice was not deficient.	Not reached; prejudice on Baxter advice was sufficient to affirm. 12

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (sets the ineffective assistance standard 13)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (modifies Strickland prejudice for guilty pleas 14)
Humble v. Commissioner of Correction, 180 Conn. App. 697 (Conn. App. 2018) (appellate review of habeas factual findings is for clear error, legal conclusions are plenary 15)
Cruz v. Commissioner of Correction, 206 Conn. App. 17 (Conn. App. 2021) (prejudice in guilty-plea ineffective assistance turns on whether defendant would have gone to trial 16)
Carraway v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 461 (Conn. App. 2013) (Hill prejudice is not merely a sentence-comparison exercise 17)
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 347 (Conn. 2022) (whether counsel's deficient performance caused a plea is a factual question reviewed for clear error 18)
Cullen v. United States, 194 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 1999) (would-have-pled inquiry is a factual prediction 19)
Freitag v. Commissioner of Correction, 208 Conn. App. 635 (Conn. App. 2021) (prior appeal held a new trial was required on the Baxter-related ineffective assistance claims 20)