Koslik v. Commissioner of Correction
16 A.3d 753
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Koslik was registered as a home improvement contractor; his registration was suspended in 1998.
- In 2001 Burns hired Koslik for a home remodeling project; he failed to complete it and Burns complained to the Department of Consumer Protection (DCP).
- DCP investigated; Koslik was arrested and tried in 2002, represented by Gaudreau.
- Convictions: impersonating a registered home improvement contractor (§ 20-427(b)(3)) and offering to make home improvements without registration (§ 20-427(b)(5)); sentenced to one year with 180 days’ incarceration and three years’ probation; direct appeal upheld.
- In 2004, Koslik began a habeas action; amended petition filed in 2007 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; habeas court denied petition and certification to appeal in 2009; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court abused its discretion denying certification to appeal | Koslik argues issues are debatable among jurists of reason | The court should assess underlying claims' merit to determine frivolity | The court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal |
| Whether trial counsel's defense strategy was deficient | Counsel failed to pursue alternative defenses | Counsel reasonably chose a defense strategy | Counsel's defense strategy was reasonable; no ineffective assistance |
| Whether failure to file discovery motions and related steps prejudiced the defense | Pretrial motions could have improved defense | No information missing; no prejudice shown | No prejudice from lack of pretrial motions |
| Whether admission of unfavorable evidence and handling of witnesses amounted to deficient performance | Evidence like mug shots and prior disciplinary history were mishandled | Strategic decisions; not ineffective; some issues debatable among jurists | Strickland standard not satisfied; some evidentiary challenges are debatable among jurists |
| Whether two evidentiary issues were debatable and should have been certified | Counsel's handling of prior disciplinary evidence and investigator's report warranted appeal | Counsel's strategic choices supported the conviction | Two evidentiary issues are debatable; however, no prejudice established; certification properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test)
- Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn.App. 641 (Conn. App. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for habeas certification; merits review limited to three criteria)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (Conn. 1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard; factors for certification)
- Synakorn v. Commissioner of Correction, 124 Conn.App. 768 (Conn. App. 2010) (plenary review of constitutional ineffective-assistance claims; both prongs can be satisfied)
- Mitchell v. Commissioner of Correction, 109 Conn.App. 758 (Conn. App. 2008) (counsel's strategic decisions are presumed reasonable; perfection not required)
- Dauti Construction, LLC v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 125 Conn.App. 665 (Conn. App. 2010) (review limits when the claim grounds were not raised below)