Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction
145 A.3d 416
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Petitioner Vance Johnson was convicted of murder and firearm possession; he has filed multiple habeas petitions challenging trial counsel and subsequent habeas counsel.
- The present appeal arises from the dismissal of Johnson’s sixth amended habeas petition, which alleged that four prior habeas attorneys (first through fourth) were ineffective for failing to claim trial counsel was ineffective for not moving for a competency evaluation under § 54-56d.
- First and second habeas petitions (and appeals) fully adjudicated various ineffective-assistance claims regarding trial and habeas counsel; the fifth habeas petition included a full evidentiary hearing rejecting claims that trial counsel should have sought a competency exam.
- The habeas court (Fuger, J.) granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss the sixth petition as precluded by res judicata and certified the appeal.
- On appeal, the court held that claims against first and second habeas counsel were barred by res judicata; claims against third and fourth counsel were not barred by res judicata but were dismissed on alternative grounds — collateral estoppel (third counsel) and failure to state a claim (fourth counsel).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against first and second habeas counsel were barred by res judicata | Johnson argued the sixth petition raised a new factual basis (failure to file § 54-56d motion) and thus avoided res judicata | Respondent argued identical legal ground (ineffective assistance re competency) was already litigated and new facts were available earlier | Court: barred by res judicata — those claims were previously litigated and no new evidence unavailable earlier |
| Whether res judicata barred claim against third habeas counsel | Johnson argued this ineffective-assistance-of-habeas-counsel claim had not been raised earlier and thus is cognizable | Respondent conceded res judicata was inapplicable but argued alternative preclusion doctrines apply | Court: res judicata did not apply, but claim was barred by collateral estoppel because the fifth habeas court already decided the underlying trial-counsel competency issue |
| Whether res judicata barred claim against fourth habeas counsel | Johnson argued the claim against fourth counsel was new and not previously litigated | Respondent conceded res judicata inapplicable but maintained dismissal was otherwise proper | Court: res judicata inapplicable, but claim fails to state a claim because fourth counsel in fact raised the competency-related allegations in the fifth habeas proceedings |
| Standard for dismissing successive habeas counts and reviewability | Johnson contended dismissal without an evidentiary hearing was improper | Respondent relied on Practice Book rules and prior adjudications to support dismissal | Court: dismissal reviewed de novo for legal conclusions; alternative grounds for affirmance acceptable where record supports them |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (right to effective habeas counsel; claim of ineffective habeas counsel actionable)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 53 (preclusion of re-litigating ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel where previously litigated)
- James L. v. Commissioner of Correction, 245 Conn. 132 (same ground can be proven by different facts; defines "ground" in habeas context)
- Kearney v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn. App. 223 (Practice Book § 23-29 limits res judicata in habeas actions)