Hines v. Commissioner of Correction
138 A.3d 430
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Vinroy Hines was convicted by a jury of attempt to commit assault in the first degree, two counts of second‑degree assault, first‑degree kidnapping, and violation of a protective order based on an incident on January 1, 2009; he was sentenced to 18 years plus special parole.
- Codefendant Conray Jones testified for the state at Hines’ trial, corroborating the victim; at trial Jones denied any promises from the state but said he expected his cooperation would be considered.
- After Hines’ trial, the state reduced Jones’ charges from multiple felonies to a misdemeanor and, at sentencing, the prosecutor told the court Jones had been a key witness whose cooperation would be noted; Jones received a conditional discharge.
- Hines filed a habeas petition alleging (1) a Brady violation — the state failed to disclose a deal/understanding with Jones promising favorable consideration — and (2) a Napue/Giglio claim — the state failed to correct Jones’ allegedly false testimony denying such a deal.
- At the habeas hearing the prosecutor testified she had told defense counsel (as her practice) that she would convey Jones’ cooperation to the sentencing judge and that no written promise was made; defense counsel did not recall formal notice but acknowledged a possible casual conversation.
- The habeas court found any agreement was limited to notifying the sentencing judge of cooperation, that defense counsel was aware or fully explored the issue at trial, and denied the habeas petition and certification to appeal; the Appellate Court dismissed Hines’ appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state suppressed evidence of an agreement between the state and Jones (Brady) | Hines: the state had an undisclosed deal (bond reduction/charge reduction/notification) and suppressed it; material to guilt. | State: any understanding was limited and was disclosed/known to defense; no undisclosed deal. | Court: No Brady violation — any agreement was limited and defense was informed; habeas court’s finding not clearly erroneous. |
| Whether the prosecutor failed to correct Jones’ allegedly false testimony denying a deal (Napue/Giglio) | Hines: Jones’ denials were false/misleading; prosecutor should have corrected them. | State: There was no undisclosed agreement to correct; the limited understanding was explored on record. | Court: No Napue/Giglio violation — no undisclosed agreement existed that required correction; issues not debatable. |
| Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion | Hines: issues are debatable and deserve appellate review. | State: habeas court reasonably found claims meritless based on record and credibility findings. | Court: No abuse — petitioner failed Lozada/Simms factors; habeas court’s factual findings supported denial. |
| Whether habeas court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous | Hines: the court mischaracterized the prosecution’s conduct and the existence of a deal. | State: findings were supported by testimony (prosecutor and defense counsel) and trial record. | Court: Most findings upheld; one statement calling there was "no deal" was erroneous but not outcome‑determinative; overall findings supported denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution suppression of favorable, material evidence violates due process)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (state must correct false or misleading witness testimony that could affect the jury)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor must disclose plea deals/agreements that could be used to impeach government witnesses)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (standard governing appellate review when certification to appeal from habeas denial is denied)
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (factors informing whether denial of certification to appeal is an abuse of discretion)
- State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 (2010) (understandings between state and witness fall within Brady/Napue/Giglio analysis)
- State v. Dolphin, 195 Conn. 444 (1985) (evidence known to defendant or disclosed during trial is not "suppressed" under Brady)
- Elsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 144 (2011) (any agreement between a state witness and the state falls within Brady principles)