Giattino v. Commissioner of Correction
AC37496
| Conn. App. Ct. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- Petitioner Richard Giattino was convicted in 2011 after a bench trial of two counts of second‑degree sexual assault and one count of risk of injury to a child based principally on the victim’s testimony; sentenced to 20 years (12 to serve) and 20 years probation.
- Alleged abuse began in summer 2009 when the victim was 14 and petitioner ~48; incidents included kissing, digital penetration, and oral sex; victim later reported to family, medical provider, police, and DCF.
- At trial petitioner testified and argued inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and lack of physical evidence; trial counsel was a public defender.
- In a 2014 amended habeas petition petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to obtain the victim’s school records and for inadequate cross‑examination, among other investigative failures.
- At the habeas trial the school produced sealed records under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10‑15b; the habeas court gave petitioner an opportunity to establish relevancy and declined to unseal without a renewed showing; petitioner did not renew the motion at trial but argued the issue in posttrial briefing.
- The habeas court denied relief, concluding petitioner produced no concrete evidence that school (or other) records contained exculpatory material or that counsel was ineffective; petitioner obtained certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Giattino) | Defendant's Argument (Comm'r of Correction) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court erred by declining in camera review of victim’s school records | Counsel should have had records reviewed because they could contain impeaching/exculpatory material; habeas court’s preliminary refusal required in camera review | Ruling was preliminary; petitioner failed to preserve issue by not renewing motion at trial; posttrial briefing did not renew it | Issue not reviewable on appeal due to abandonment; petitioner failed to preserve by not renewing motion |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain school records | Failure to obtain records was deficient and prejudicial because records would have shown misconduct (skipping/suspension for stealing) and could narrow timeline to develop an alibi | Petitioner produced no evidence that school records actually contained exculpatory material; speculative claims insufficient to show deficiency or prejudice | Habeas court correctly found no deficient performance—petitioner failed to show records would have contained admissible exculpatory evidence |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for inadequate cross‑examination of the victim | Counsel failed to exploit inconsistencies and to pin down dates/timeline to impeach or create alibi | These specific cross‑examination claims were not raised in the amended habeas petition and were not decided by the habeas court | Claims unpreserved on appeal; court declined to review merits |
| Adequacy of habeas court’s factual and credibility findings | Petitioner asserted some factual assertions (e.g., discipline for stealing) supporting need for records | Respondent pointed to habeas court credibility findings and lack of corroborating evidence | Appellate court defers to habeas court’s credibility findings; petitioner failed to rebut them with concrete evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Ferraro v. Ridgefield European Motors, Inc., 313 Conn. 735 (rule that claims not distinctly raised at trial are not reviewable on appeal)
- State v. Francis, 246 Conn. 339 (preliminary ruling must be renewed or issue deemed unpreserved)
- Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, 131 Conn. App. 336 (habeas petition must plead specific factual grounds; appellate courts won’t consider claims not raised below)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 585 (standard of review for habeas factual findings and mixed questions of law and fact)
- Griffin v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 239 (speculation insufficient to meet habeas burden to show exculpatory evidence exists)
- Ham v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 697 (court may resolve ineffective‑assistance claims on either performance or prejudice prong)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 218 Conn. 403 (two‑prong Strickland framework for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Johnson, 214 Conn. 161 (party must seek definitive ruling to preserve claim after preliminary adverse ruling)