James v. Commissioner of Correction
156 A.3d 89
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 2003 petitioner Allen Lamont James was arrested after police found his child Alquan's remains in a suitcase; autopsy showed multiple blunt-force injuries and homicide was the cause of death. James gave inconsistent statements to police about the child’s death and later testified at trial that the child collapsed in his arms.
- James was tried for murder and related charges; the trial court sua sponte instructed the jury on lesser included offenses (manslaughter first degree variants). The jury convicted James of first degree manslaughter (§ 53a-55(a)(3)) and other charges; he was sentenced to 14 years plus special parole.
- James filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for (1) failing to consult him and pursue his stated objective to proceed “all or nothing” (i.e., refuse lesser-included instructions), and (2) failing to request a jury instruction on parental discipline/justification (§ 53a-18(1)).
- At the habeas trial counsel testified they considered lesser-included instructions early and consciously acquiesced to them as trial strategy given the strength of the state’s evidence; they also did not seek a parental-discipline charge because they believed it would undermine the accident/innocence theory.
- The habeas court denied relief, concluding counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable and that James could not show prejudice from not receiving a parental-discipline instruction. The court denied certification to appeal; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not consulting James and pursuing his objective to refuse lesser-included instructions | James: counsel should have followed his objective to go "all or nothing" and must consult before acquiescing to lesser-included instructions under RPC 1.2(a) | Respondent: decision about lesser-included instructions is strategic; counsel considered and reasonably chose to accept them to avoid an all-or-nothing risk | Held: No ineffective assistance — counsel’s choice was reasonable trial strategy and not required to obtain client’s consent like plea/jury-waiver/testify decisions |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting a parental-discipline (§ 53a-18(1)) jury instruction | James: facts supported a parental-justification instruction and counsel’s failure deprived him of a viable defense | Respondent: counsel reasonably declined because it would undermine the accident defense; even if deficient, no reasonable probability the judge would have given the instruction or that outcome would differ | Held: No prejudice — evidence could not support that force was "reasonable"; unlikely judge would have given instruction, so outcome not reasonably probable to change |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (two-pronged test for appellate review after denial of certification to appeal in habeas context)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (performance and prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175 (U.S. 2004) (distinguishing counsel decisions requiring client consent from ordinary strategic choices)
- Reeves v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 852 (Conn. App. 2010) (decision to request lesser-included instruction is strategic)
- Franko v. Commissioner of Correction, 165 Conn. App. 505 (Conn. App. 2016) (strategic waiver/request decisions regarding lesser offenses reviewed for reasonableness)
- McClam v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 432 (Conn. App. 2006) (acquiescing to or seeking lesser-included offenses can be reasonable strategy)
- State v. Nathan J., 294 Conn. 243 (Conn. 2009) (standards for parental-justification defense and the defendant’s initial burden to produce evidence)