Gooden v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn. App. 662

Anthony Gooden appeals after habeas court denied certification to appeal from denial of amended writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner claimed trial counsel was ineffective for (i) failing to have a third party present during an interview with a potential exculpatory witness and (ii) failing to lay a foundation to impeach that witness when his trial testimony contradicted the prior interview statement.
Facts relate to a 1999 undercover drug operation and a 2002 conviction, with a prior Connecticut appellate reversal on possession charges, and the subsequent habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
During Aspinwall’s pretrial interview of witness Michael Young, Young allegedly stated he would testify he was not involved; Young later testified otherwise at trial.
Habeas court treated the claim as an ineffective-assistance claim, ultimately denying relief and certification to appeal, which this court then denied on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the habeas court abused discretion in denying certification to appeal	Gooden	State	No abuse; issues not reasonably debatable.
Whether Aspinwall's performance was deficient	Gooden	State	Assuming deficiency, no prejudice shown.
Whether Aspinwall's failure to impeach based on the prior statement caused prejudice	Gooden	State	No reasonable probability of different outcome.
Whether the prior inconsistent statement impeachment would have changed outcome given cumulative testimony	Gooden	State	Prejudice not established; cumulative evidence.”

State v. Gooden, 89 Conn.App. 307 (2005) (reversed conviction on possession charges; relevant procedural history)
Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn.App. 641 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for certification to appeal)
Atkinson v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn.App. 632 (2010) (two-prong ineffective-assistance framework; prejudice required)