Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction
153 A.3d 1233
| Conn. | 2017Background
- Nabeel Kaddah was convicted of murder; his direct appeal affirmed the conviction.
- Kaddah filed a first state habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance at trial and on appeal; it was denied.
- He then filed a second habeas (a "habeas on a habeas") alleging his first habeas counsel was ineffective; that petition was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
- Kaddah filed a third habeas petition alleging his second habeas counsel (appointed under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 51-296(a)) was ineffective; the habeas court sua sponte questioned whether such a third habeas is cognizable and dismissed parts of the petition for failure to state a claim.
- The Commissioner conceded that § 51-296(a) gives a right to counsel in a second habeas and that the right includes competent counsel; the Supreme Court held that Connecticut common law permits a third habeas to vindicate ineffective-assistance claims against second-habeas counsel and reversed the dismissal of those counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a third habeas petition may challenge ineffective assistance by counsel who represented a petitioner in a second habeas proceeding | Kaddah: third habeas is cognizable because § 51-296(a) grants counsel in second habeas and that right necessarily includes competence; denying third habeas renders second habeas counsel right illusory | Commissioner: permitting third habeas would permit endless "habeas on habeas" claims and finality/efficiency interests counsel against it; statutory text does not authorize third habeas | Held: A third habeas is available under common law to vindicate the right to competent counsel in a second habeas; dismissal reversed as to those counts |
| Whether § 51-296(a)’s statutory right to appointed counsel in a second habeas includes a right to competent counsel | Kaddah: statutory language "any habeas corpus proceeding arising from a criminal matter" encompasses second habeas and therefore requires competence | Commissioner initially conceded before trial and later argued statutory text does not mandate habeas remedy to enforce competence | Held: Court accepts concession that § 51-296(a) includes a right to competent counsel in a second habeas; competence is implicit in right to appointed counsel |
| Whether Lozada’s logic permitting a second habeas applies indefinitely to allow successive habeas petitions for ineffective-assistance claims | Kaddah: existing procedural safeguards (successive-petition rules, summary dismissal, collateral estoppel) prevent abuse; Lozada’s principles extend | Commissioner/habeas court: extension would create infinite, burdensome litigation and undermine finality | Held: Court recognizes finality concerns but allows third habeas as necessary to vindicate statutory right; declines to decide extension beyond third habeas |
| Whether In re Jonathan M. compels denying habeas remedy here because of finality concerns | Commissioner: compares parental-rights finality rationale to habeas context to argue against third habeas | Kaddah: criminal habeas context differs—liberty interests justify more probing review | Held: Court distinguishes In re Jonathan M. (termination context) and rejects its application here; criminal habeas differs in relevant interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (Conn. 1992) (authorizes a second habeas to challenge ineffectiveness of first habeas counsel and emphasizes habeas as remedy for fundamental fairness)
- Sinchak v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 684 (Conn. App. 2011) (holds § 51-296(a) requires appointment of counsel for "habeas on a habeas")
- In re Jonathan M., 255 Conn. 208 (Conn. 2001) (held habeas not available to vindicate effective assistance in termination-of-parental-rights context because of finality concerns)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (governs ineffectiveness-of-counsel standard)
- Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1963) (discusses common-law history and purpose of the great writ of habeas corpus)
- Bunkley v. Commissioner of Correction, 222 Conn. 444 (Conn. 1992) (explains habeas purpose as bulwark against convictions violating fundamental fairness)