Grover v. Commissioner of Correction
194 A.3d 316
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Petitioner John Grover pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford to one count of risk of injury to a child (October 25, 2013); sentenced to 7 years, plus 10 years special parole and 10-year sex-offender registration. Original charges included first-degree sexual assault.
- Petitioner retained Attorney Jerome Paun pre-arrest and paid a $7,500 pretrial fee; a later trial fee arrangement required a $5,000 retainer and $250/hr once on the trial list—petitioner paid only about $2,000 of that retainer.
- Before trial, petitioner accepted a plea negotiated by Paun that substantially reduced exposure; petitioner later filed habeas alleging conflict of interest and ineffective assistance based on unpaid trial fee and failure to hire or seek funding for a forensic mental‑health expert.
- At the habeas hearing, petitioner presented forensic psychologist Dr. Nancy Eiswirth and defense expert Attorney Michael Sheehan criticizing the forensic interview and opining a psychologist should have been retained; Paun testified he reviewed the interview and victim, consulted with petitioner, and reasonably advised plea rather than pursue an expert-driven trial strategy.
- The habeas court credited Paun’s testimony, rejected claims of an actual conflict or deficient performance, found petitioner would not have qualified for funding, and concluded even with an expert Paun would have advised the plea; petition for certification to appeal was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grover) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner / Paun) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paun labored under an actual conflict of interest due to unpaid trial retainer | Unpaid trial retainer gave Paun a financial incentive to advise plea over trial and to withhold/request funding advice | Fee was not a flat fee; Paun valued reputation, fully investigated, and secured a favorable plea; unpaid retainer alone is only a potential conflict | Denied: no actual conflict shown; habeas court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether Paun withheld information or failed to seek court funding for expert assistance (Wang / Ake theory) | Paun should have informed/secured expert funding; failure evidences conflict and deficient strategy | Wang was decided after plea; Ake scope was unsettled; Paun had reasonable strategic and factual bases to not seek funding | Denied: failure to request funding not unreasonable or demonstrative of conflict |
| Whether Paun rendered ineffective assistance by not retaining a forensic psychologist | Not retaining/ requesting an expert was deficient and prejudiced plea decision | Paun concluded expert would be unhelpful given interview and facts; decision was reasonable strategy | Denied: performance not shown deficient; habeas court credited counsel’s strategy |
| Whether Paun failed to pursue or investigate alternative innocence theories (foster father misidentification; eczema treatment) | Paun failed to investigate foster father and medical records supporting innocent touch theory | No factual findings supported foster-father theory; Paun investigated eczema theory and found contradicting facts (vibrator allegation, mother’s statement) | Denied: no deficient performance shown; strategic decision reasonable |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standards for appellate review where habeas certification to appeal denied)
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1991) (factors for counsel‑related habeas review referenced in Simms framework)
- State v. Wang, 312 Conn. 222 (Conn. 2014) (indigent, self‑represented defendants entitled to reasonably necessary expert or investigative assistance)
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires access to psychiatric evaluation when sanity is likely a significant factor)
- Cheatham v. State, 296 Kan. 417 (Kan. 2013) (disfavoring flat‑fee arrangements that incentivize minimal representation)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged standard for ineffective assistance claims)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance claims arising from guilty pleas)
- State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665 (Conn. 1998) (right to counsel free from conflicts of interest)