Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 303
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Petitioner Bill Roy Henderson was convicted by jury in 2001 of conspiracy to commit murder, murder, and tampering with a witness; total term 60 years.
- Henderson moved for a new trial based on alleged prosecutorial Brady violations related to a key witness Wright; motion denied after hearing.
- Direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court upheld the conviction in State v. Henderson, 83 Conn.App. 739 (2004).
- On January 16, 2009, Henderson filed an amended habeas petition asserting ineffective assistance claims and prosecutorial impropriety via Brady violation.
- Habeas court denied all claims and denied certification to appeal; Henderson appealed from that denial.
- On appeal, the court addressed (1) trial counsel’s failure to call witnesses (including Henderson) and failure to recommend a plea, and (2) res judicata to a Brady claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not calling witnesses | Gaynors should have testified; Henderson would have testified if given chance. | Petitioner neither presented their testimony nor showed how it would help; trial strategy unaffected prejudice not shown. | No prejudice; failure to call witnesses not ineffective assistance. |
| Ineffective assistance for not recommending plea | Counsel should have recommended accepting the state's plea offer. | Claim not raised in habeas petition; no reviewable record of what Henderson would have done or accepted. | Claim not reviewable; petition did not raise this issue before the habeas court. |
| Brady claim barred by res judicata | New documents post-dating the motion for a new trial show a Brady violation. | No substantive difference; claims already litigated and decided against Henderson. | Res judicata applies; additional documents do not revive the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 1 A.3d 1242 (Conn. App. 2010) (ineffective assistance standard and prejudice prong applied)
- Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction, 975 A.2d 1282 (Conn. App. 2009) (prejudice showing required for habeas ineffective claims)
- Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 936 A.2d 611 (Conn. 2007) ( Lozada framework and appeal review standards)
- Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 859 A.2d 948 (Conn. App. 2004) (habeas res judicata considerations)
- State v. Henderson, 853 A.2d 115 (Conn. App. 2004) (prior Brady/new-trial ruling and lack of suppression evidence)
- Simms v. Warden, 646 A.2d 126 (Conn. 1994) (non-frivolous habeas review standard guiding certification)
- Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction, 975 A.2d 1282 (Conn. App. 2009) (prejudice requirement in ineffective assistance claims)