Hardison v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 A.3d 873

Hardison was charged with disorderly conduct, later consolidated with narcotics charges; he retained Kretzmer for the disorderly conduct case and Berke for the narcotics charges due to a conflict of interest.
Case involved mandatory minimum sentences under § 21a-278(b) and § 21a-278a(b) with potential six- to eight-year totals; early plea offers offered a seven-year total out, with various suspension options.
Assistant State’s Attorney DeJoseph later offered a seven-year sentence suspended after 25 months plus three years of probation, and then a ten-year total with five years suspended at a later point.
Hardison ultimately pled guilty and sought departure under § 21a-283a, with the court indicating a likely eight-year minimum; negotiations continued during sentencing.
The habeas court granted certification to appeal, and the parties challenged the admissibility of Kretzmer’s testimony and the effectiveness of counsel.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the testimony was properly admitted and that counsel’s performance was not deficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of attorney-client privilege by placing communications at issue	Hardison implicitly waived privilege by raising ineffective assistance claims involving both attorneys	Waiver applies because communications were central to claims and attorneys participated in consultations	Waiver found; testimony properly admitted
Hearsay of Berke’s out-of-court statements via Kretzmer’s testimony	Testimony about Berke’s statements should be excluded as hearsay	Testimony was not hearsay; statements offered to show the advice given, not truth	Not hearsay or harmless error; admissible or harmlessly cumulative
Effectiveness of counsel regarding plea and § 21a-283a departure	Kretzmer and Berke failed to advise on likelihood of departure and acceptance of offers	Counsel advised on risks and options; defendant retained ultimate decision-making power	Counsel not constitutionally deficient; no prejudice shown

Cox v. Burdick, 98 Conn. App. 167 (2006) (attorney-client privilege and waiver discussed; scope of exception)
White v. Commissioner of Correction, 145 Conn. App. 834 (2013) (deficient performance depends on surrounding circumstances; collaboration among counsel)
State v. Calderon, 82 Conn. App. 315 (2004) (hearsay and non-hearsay distinctions; admissibility framework)
State v. Miguel C., 305 Conn. 562 (2012) (legal standards for evidentiary classification and review)
Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 424 (2010) (ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
Gibson v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 311 (2006) (claimant failed to show deficient performance without supporting evidence)