Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 453

Harris filed a fourth petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging prior habeas representation and trial counsel.
Habeas petitions trace back to 1993, 2003, 2004, and 2005; prior courts rejected or dismissed those claims.
The fourth petition asserted ineffective assistance by trial counsel and by first/second habeas counsel, plus trial misidentification and prosecutorial issues.
The habeas court on remand examined trial counsel’s performance and first/second habeas counsel’s conduct under Strickland and Lozada standards.
The court denied relief, finding no deficient performance or prejudice, and rejected an actual innocence claim regarding sexual assault in the first degree.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Harris proved ineffective assistance by trial counsel under Strickland.	Harris contends misidentification evidence and related issues were not properly pursued.	Counsel acted within a wide range of reasonable professional assistance.	No; performance and prejudice prongs not satisfied.
Whether first/second habeas counsel were ineffective under Lozada standards.	Habeas counsel failed to pursue exculpatory evidence and related claims.	Counsel's conduct was reasonable under Lozada and Strickland.	No; petitioner failed to show deficient performance prejudicing the defense.
Whether Harris is actually innocent of sexual assault in the first degree.	Evidence establishes actual innocence.	Evidence does not prove actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence.	No; petitioner failed to establish actual innocence.
Whether the petition was barred as successive/abuse of the writ and whether new grounds justified review.	Ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel constitutes new ground.	Abuse of the writ doctrine applied to successive petitions, with exceptions for new grounds.	Remand allowed; new grounds permitted review; petition ultimately denied.

Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (Conn. 1992) (necessary Lozada two-step test for habeas counsel ineffectiveness)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged standard for ineffective assistance)
Turner v. Commissioner of Correction, 118 Conn. App. 565 (Conn. App. 2009) (two-step Strickland framework applied in Connecticut habeas cases)
Smith v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn. App. 637 (Conn. App. 2010) (review of habeas petition decisions on appeal)
State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (Conn. 1986) (Whelan doctrine and admissibility concerns)
Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 108 Conn. App. 201 (Conn. App. 2008) (prior habeas petition history and procedural posture)