Hanson v. Commissioner of Correction
150 A.3d 234
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Hanson, an experienced attorney, pleaded guilty pro se in Aug. 2007 to multiple sexual and related offenses; sentence imposed Nov. 2, 2007 (25 years, execution suspended after 6, 30 years probation). Appeals and postconviction filings followed; direct appeal affirmed.
- Hanson filed a second amended habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance by Attorneys Salvatore Bonanno and Donald Freeman and prosecutorial vindictiveness by ASA Thomas O’Brien; after a five-day habeas trial the court denied relief and refused certification to appeal.
- Bonanno appeared at several pretrial dates, discussed plea negotiations in chambers, was paid and then returned funds, but never filed an appearance and the criminal court found he had no official role; habeas court found no retention or attorney–client relationship with Hanson.
- Freeman was retained to file a substitute motion to withdraw Hanson’s guilty pleas; Freeman omitted Hanson’s asserted medical-duress claim and advised Hanson not to testify at the withdrawal hearing; the court denied the motion.
- O’Brien had made a limited plea offer conditioned on no intervening activity; after counsel (Romano) appeared and filed motions, O’Brien withdrew the offer; habeas court found no credible evidence of prosecutorial vindictiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bonanno was Hanson’s counsel for an ineffective-assistance claim | Bonanno acted as standby/consulting counsel and thus could be the focus of ineffective-assistance claim | Bonanno never was retained or filed an appearance; criminal court found he had no official role | Court held Bonanno did not represent Hanson; claim dismissed |
| Whether Freeman performed deficiently by failing to consult about claims to include in substitute motion to withdraw pleas | Freeman should have raised Hanson’s medical-duress (illness/medication) claim in the substitute motion | Freeman strategically omitted weak medical-duress claim and pursued pleading-canvas defects as the only viable theory | Court held Freeman’s strategic choices were reasonable; no deficient performance |
| Whether Freeman was ineffective for preventing/denying Hanson’s testimony at the withdrawal hearing | Hanson alleges Freeman unilaterally refused to let him testify | Freeman testified he advised against it, discussed with Hanson, and Hanson agreed | Court credited Freeman; strategy decision reasonable; no ineffective assistance |
| Whether O’Brien vindictively withdrew a plea offer after Hanson obtained counsel and filed motions | Withdrawal was retaliatory / vindictive because it followed appearance of counsel and motions | Offer was explicitly conditioned on no intervening activity; Romano’s appearance and motions were intervening circumstances | Court found no credible evidence of vindictiveness; withdrawal did not amount to actionable prosecutorial vindictiveness |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (standard for abuse of discretion in denial of certification to appeal)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 (standards of review: factual findings vs. legal questions)
- Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225 (deference to credibility findings based on firsthand observations)
- Ricks v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 497 (review standards for habeas factual findings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Saucier v. Commissioner of Correction, 139 Conn. App. 644 (strategy of culling weaker claims is sound)
- State v. Hobson, 68 Conn. App. 40 (defendant’s right to testify vs. counsel’s strategic advice)
- State v. Lee, 86 Conn. App. 323 (standards for proving prosecutorial vindictiveness)
- Couture v. Commissioner of Correction, 160 Conn. App. 757 (application of Strickland in Connecticut habeas context)