Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction
176 A.3d 559
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jamie Gomez was convicted (murder, felony murder, conspiracy) after a consolidated trial; convictions and sentence affirmed on direct appeal.
- Two prosecution witnesses, Angeline Valentin and James “Tiny” Smith, had pending charges; they testified for the state and later had their bonds reduced and eventual dispositions favorable to them.
- At bond hearings and probable‑cause hearings in open court prosecutors stated they would "bring the witnesses’ cooperation to the attention of the sentencing court" but denied any quid pro quo or specific sentencing promises on the record.
- Gomez filed a second habeas petition alleging (1) Brady suppression of exculpatory/impeachment evidence about agreements/consideration offered to the witnesses, (2) Napue/Giglio claims that the state knowingly allowed false testimony that no consideration was given, and (3) ineffective assistance for trial counsel’s failure to impeach witnesses with bond hearing/probable‑cause transcripts.
- The habeas court found (a) limited express agreements existed only to bring cooperation to the sentencing court, (b) those agreements were disclosed, (c) no Brady or Giglio/Napue violation occurred, and (d) Gomez failed to show prejudice from any alleged failure by trial counsel. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady: nondisclosure of express agreements to bring cooperation to sentencing court | Gomez: state had express undisclosed agreements with Valentin and Smith to bring their cooperation to the sentencing court (material exculpatory evidence) | State: the limited agreements existed and were disclosed at public hearings; no suppression | Court: Agreements were limited to bringing cooperation to court and were disclosed; no Brady violation |
| Brady: nondisclosure of impeachment evidence (bond reductions / informal understanding) | Gomez: transcripts of bond hearings show state assisted in reducing bonds, implying an undisclosed informal understanding useful for impeachment | State: bond hearings were public and transcripts accessible; petitioner had equal access and did not show inability to obtain them | Court: petitioner had equal access to transcripts; failed to prove suppression or undisclosed understanding; no Brady violation |
| Napue/Giglio: failure to correct false testimony that no consideration was given | Gomez: witnesses falsely denied receiving consideration; prosecutor obliged to correct | State: no undisclosed agreement or understanding; statements occurred in open court; no duty to correct where no undisclosed promise | Court: prerequisite is an undisclosed agreement; none proven here because agreements were disclosed and bond‑hearing statements were public; no Napue/Giglio violation |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to impeach with transcripts) | Gomez: trial counsel Cocheo failed to adequately cross‑examine/impeach Valentin and Smith with available transcripts, which likely affected outcome | State: counsel and co‑counsel thoroughly explored cooperation/bond reductions; jury was informed and instructed about possible bias; no reasonable probability of different outcome | Court: even assuming deficient performance, Gomez failed Strickland prejudice prong—no reasonable probability of different verdict; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (prosecution must correct material false testimony by witnesses)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment evidence relating to deals must be disclosed and, if misstated, corrected)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Hines v. Commissioner of Correction, 164 Conn. App. 712 (2016) (no duty to correct allegedly false testimony absent an undisclosed agreement)
- State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 (2010) (existence of undisclosed agreement is prerequisite for Brady/Napue/Giglio claims)
- State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (2000) (burden on defendant to prove existence of undisclosed exculpatory evidence)
- Elsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 144 (2011) (question whether agreement existed is factual)
- State v. Booth, 250 Conn. 611 (1999) (underlying consolidated trial and factual background)