129 Conn. App. 593
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Lane was convicted of first-degree assault and criminal possession of a firearm after a jury trial.
- On appeal, Lane challenged Batson-based jury selection and admission of out-of-court identification; those challenges were rejected.
- Lane filed a federal habeas petition; an amended petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to pretrial investigate, explain the plea offer, and challenge peremptory challenges/minority juror dismissal.
- At the habeas hearing, Bowden-Lewis admitted telling Lane he had a 50 percent chance at trial; Seifert testified the case was overwhelmingly in the state’s favor and Bowden-Lewis’ failure to urge acceptance of the plea was deficient.
- The habeas court found Bowden-Lewis’ performance deficient on the 50 percent advisory but held there was no prejudice since Lane adamantly denied guilt and would not have pled guilty.
- The habeas court denied certification to appeal; the appellate court dismissed Lane’s appeal for lack of reversible prejudice and abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowden-Lewis rendered ineffective assistance | Lane argues Bowden-Lewis misadvised about plea and failed to explain consequences. | Bowden-Lewis advised a generic 50% chance of success and acted within standard practice; no prejudice shown. | No reversible prejudice; denial of certification affirmed. |
| Whether the 50% trial success statement constitutes deficient performance | Lane asserts the 50% estimate was inaccurate and prejudicial. | 50% is a standard, non-prejudicial communication used by Bowden-Lewis for all clients. | Deficient, but not prejudicial under Strickland. |
| Whether Lane would have accepted the plea and whether the court would have imposed the plea judgment | Lane would have accepted the offer if properly explained. | Testimony showed Lane consistently denied guilt and refused plea under any circumstances. | No proof Lane would have accepted the offer; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Bewry v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 259 (Conn. App. 2010) (defendant must show prejudice from ineffective assistance)
- Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 543 (Conn. App. 2004) (prejudiceFramework for plea-based claims in habeas)
- Douros v. Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn. App. 525 (Conn. App. 2008) (credibility and factual findings defer to habeas trier)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (U.S. 1986) (peremptory challenge discrimination prohibition)