Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction
75 A.3d 705
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Petitioner Angel Gonzalez was convicted by a jury of murder for a November 16, 2003 killing; prior events included a related killing November 15, 2003 and connections among participants and witnesses.
- At trial, jailhouse informant testimony (McClairen, Bennett) and a prior victim’s ex-girlfriend’s identification contributed to the state’s case; Gonzalez was known as "Clown/Clowny."
- Gonzalez moved for a new trial based on sworn statements from four inmates alleging a jailhouse conspiracy to falsely inculpate him; the trial court denied that motion and the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- In habeas proceedings Gonzalez claimed trial counsel Stawicki was ineffective for failing to investigate and call four inmate witnesses who allegedly would have impeached McClairen and Bennett.
- The habeas court found counsel made a strategic, informed decision not to pursue the inmates because doing so risked exposing Ward (an alleged organizer and friend of the victim) and eliciting testimony that could harm Gonzalez. The habeas court denied relief and refused certification to appeal.
- The appellate court dismissed Gonzalez’s appeal, holding counsel’s decision was reasonable trial strategy and Gonzalez failed to show the denial of certification was an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present four inmate witnesses to impeach state's informants | Gonzalez: Stawicki inadequately investigated; additional inmate testimony would have impeached McClairen and Bennett and changed the verdict | State/Stawicki: Counsel had Flores’ file, knew of the alleged conspiracy and reasonably strategized not to pursue witnesses to avoid exposing Ward and harmful testimony | Held: Counsel's decision fell within reasonable professional judgment; no deficiency shown |
| Whether habeas court abused discretion by denying certification to appeal | Gonzalez: Issues are debatable among jurists and deserve appellate review | State: Issues lack merit because performance prong of Strickland not met | Held: No abuse of discretion; certification denial affirmed |
| Whether failure to know exact inmate testimony rendered counsel's decision unreasonable | Gonzalez: Without knowing testimony, decision not to investigate was uninformed | State: Counsel may limit investigation when reasonable; need not know every witness’s exact testimony before strategic choice | Held: No rigid rule requires exact knowledge; strategy was reasonable |
| Whether appellant may raise failure to call witnesses as a distinct claim on appeal | Gonzalez: Also argued failure to call the four inmates was separate deficiency (raised in reply brief) | State: New argument not properly preserved for appeal | Held: New aspect raised first in reply is unpreserved; court addresses only failure-to-investigate claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (two-pronged test for appellate review after denial of certification to appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice prongs)
- Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (2012) (counsel must make reasonable investigations or reasonably limit them; informed strategy can justify not investigating)
- Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 100 Conn. App. 94 (2007) (counsel need not investigate every lead)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (2008) (habeas judge as sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 (2009) (appellant may not raise new issues for the first time in a reply brief)