Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction
144 Conn. App. 365
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Vance Johnson pleaded guilty to firearm possession (5 years) and was later convicted at trial of murder (60 years concurrent); direct appeal affirmed.
- Johnson filed four habeas petitions; the latest alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Fred DeCaprio) for failing to seek a competency examination under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56d.
- He also alleged ineffective assistance by two prior habeas attorneys (Vicki Hutchinson and William Bums) for failing to raise the DeCaprio-competency claim in earlier petitions.
- The habeas court bifurcated proceedings and first heard testimony from the three attorneys and the petitioner.
- The habeas court credited all three attorneys’ testimony that Johnson’s competency was never in question and found DeCaprio’s performance was not deficient, rendering medical expert evidence unnecessary.
- The habeas court denied admission of the petitioner’s forensic psychologist’s report at that stage; the court concluded Strickland permits resolving a claim on the deficient-performance prong alone. The court’s denial of habeas relief was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a competency exam | DeCaprio should have requested/explored competency evaluation; failure was deficient | Counsel and trial judge had no reasonable basis to doubt competency; counsel’s conduct reasonable | No ineffective assistance: habeas court credited attorneys that competency was never in question, performance not deficient |
| Whether prior habeas counsel were ineffective for not raising DeCaprio competency claim | Hutchinson/Bums should have raised predecessor counsel’s incompetence as independent habeas grounds | Their claims depended on showing DeCaprio’s deficiency and resulting prejudice; DeCaprio was not ineffective | No ineffective assistance: derivative claims fail because DeCaprio’s performance was not deficient, so no prejudice proved |
| Admissibility of petitioner’s psychological/cognitive expert report/testimony at that stage | Expert evidence was relevant because performance and prejudice are intertwined when alleging failure to request competency testing | Medical evidence unnecessary if court finds no deficient performance; Strickland allows resolution on performance alone | Properly excluded at that stage: court reasonably decided expert evidence was unnecessary after finding no deficient performance |
| Whether habeas court’s factual findings about attorneys’ credibility were reviewable | Petitioner contended court miscredited witnesses and erred in factual findings | Habeas court is sole arbiter of witness credibility; appellate court reviews findings for clear error | Appellate court affirmed: credibility determinations entitled to deference and not clearly erroneous |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction, 101 Conn. App. 133 (discusses Strickland application in Connecticut habeas context)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 218 Conn. 403 (addresses Strickland prongs and need not reach prejudice if performance fails)
- Sargent v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 725 (tribunal is sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- State v. Johnson, 53 Conn. App. 476 (direct appeal affirming underlying murder conviction)