Jones v. Commissioner of Correction
152 Conn.App. 110
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Petitioner Glenn Jones was convicted after a Bridgeport shooting; jury found him guilty of attempted murder, first‑degree assault, conspiracy, reckless endangerment, illegal firearm possession, and carrying a pistol without a permit; sentenced to 26 years.
- At trial witnesses identified Jones as one of two shooters who fled the scene; identification was litigated on appeal and affirmed (State v. Jones).
- Jones filed a fourth amended habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to call three witnesses: orthopedic expert (to show physical inability to run), Bridget Quinlan (alleged inconsistent statement by victim), and eyewitness Raquel Ortiz (who would say Jones was not a shooter).
- At the habeas trial Jones presented orthopedic expert Herbert Hermele, who testified Jones could not "run" per a medical definition but conceded Jones could move away quickly; the habeas court found trial counsel had already introduced evidence of Jones’s limited running ability.
- The habeas court excluded or found cumulative Quinlan and Ortiz testimony and concluded Jones failed to show prejudice under Strickland; petition for certification to appeal was denied and this appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not presenting medical expert testimony | Jones: expert would show he could not run, undermining identification | State: trial counsel already introduced evidence of limited running; expert not likely to change outcome | Denied — no prejudicial effect shown; habeas court properly found no Strickland prejudice |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Bridget Quinlan | Jones: Quinlan would show victim Beltran made inconsistent ID statements | State: Quinlan’s testimony would be cumulative and was not likely to alter verdict | Denied — habeas court found cumulative and not outcome‑determinative |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling Raquel Ortiz | Jones: Ortiz would testify he was not the shooter | State: Ortiz’s testimony would be cumulative and not newly compelling | Denied — habeas court found testimony cumulative and no reasonable probability of different result |
| Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion | Jones: issues are debatable among jurists and warrant review | State: petitioner failed to show the claims merit certification because no Strickland prejudice | Denied — appellate court concluded habeas court did not abuse discretion and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (standard for review of denial of certification to appeal from habeas proceedings)
- Jefferson v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 767 (2013) (application of Strickland in Connecticut habeas context)
- State v. Jones, 68 Conn. App. 562 (direct appeal affirming petitioner’s convictions)