163 Conn.App. 761
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Petitioner Charles Fullenwiley pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford to first‑degree possession of child pornography on June 3, 2008, receiving a 20‑year sentence with execution suspended after 12 years and 15 years’ probation.
- He filed a revised amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel and actual innocence; he pursued only the ineffective assistance claim on appeal.
- The habeas court found the state’s case overwhelming (forensic expert confirmed images were genuine) and the petitioner’s criminal history severe.
- The habeas court listed numerous alleged counsel deficiencies (e.g., inadequate plea explanation, insufficient investigation, failure to interview witnesses, misinformation about defense witnesses) but concluded the petitioner failed to show prejudice.
- The habeas court denied the petition for certification to appeal; petitioner appealed that denial and the denial of habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion by denying certification to appeal | Fullenwiley argued counsel was deficient during plea negotiations and thus the court should allow appeal | State argued petitioner failed to show the issues were debatable or that he was prejudiced by counsel’s performance | Denied — petitioner did not show abuse of discretion because he failed to demonstrate prejudice |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (performance prong) | Counsel failed to adequately explain plea/Alford plea, investigate, interview witnesses, and properly advise petitioner | State contended counsel’s performance did not result in prejudice and the record showed strong evidence of guilt | Court acknowledged alleged deficiencies but petitioner failed to carry prejudice prong |
| Whether petitioner was prejudiced such that he would have gone to trial but for counsel’s errors | Petitioner contended deficiencies affected his plea choice | State cited overwhelming evidence and petitioner’s admissions; argued no reasonable probability petitioner would have proceeded to trial | Held no — petitioner did not establish he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial |
| Whether habeas judgment should be reversed on merits | Petitioner sought reversal based on ineffective assistance | State urged affirmance given lack of prejudice showing | Affirmed — dismissal of appeal for failure to meet burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (guilty plea accepted despite protestation of innocence)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (standard for habeas certification abuse of discretion)
- Carraway v. Commissioner of Correction, 317 Conn. 594 (2015) (prejudice in plea context requires showing petitioner would have gone to trial)
- Atkinson v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 632 (2010) (reasonable‑probability standard for prejudice in plea cases)