Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction
175 A.3d 46
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Lebron was charged in 1997/1999; his original counsel (Simon) was allowed to withdraw shortly before trial, and a mistrial was declared; Conroy was later appointed and Lebron pleaded guilty under Alford to manslaughter and conspiracy in May 1999.
- Lebron filed two prior habeas petitions (first denied; appellate rights later restored by stipulation in the second), failing to timely appeal some rulings and not litigating all merits of ineffective-assistance claims.
- In August 2013 Lebron filed a third habeas petition with six counts: counts 1–2 (freestanding constitutional claims about counsel-withdrawal and denial of self-representation), count 3 (ineffective assistance by Simon), count 4 (ineffective assistance by Conroy), counts 5–6 (ineffective assistance by his prior habeas counsel DeSantis and Kraus).
- Respondent pleaded affirmative defenses (including waiver via guilty plea and successive-petition bar) as to counts 1–4 but pleaded no defenses to counts 5–6.
- The habeas court, after briefing and a show-cause hearing under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470(b), dismissed the entire petition for lack of good cause to proceed to trial. Lebron appealed; the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts 1–2 (freestanding pre-plea challenges) were waived by Lebron’s guilty plea | Lebron: adequate factual nexus exists; claims survived plea | Commissioner: unconditional plea waived nonjurisdictional pretrial claims | Held: Waived — plea bars those freestanding claims; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether count 3 (ineffective assistance by Simon relating to pre-plea events) survived plea-waiver | Lebron: Simon’s withdrawal/advice affected plea decision; would have gone to trial | Commissioner: Claims arose before plea and are waived; speculative causal link | Held: Waived — insufficient interrelationship; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether count 4 (ineffective assistance by Conroy about plea advice) was properly dismissed where waiver defense was not pleaded as to that count | Lebron: should be allowed to litigate whether Conroy failed to advise about waiver consequences | Commissioner: Count 4 is successive (res judicata/Practice Book §23-29) and was pleaded as such | Held: Dismissal upheld — court correctly treated count 4 as successive and barred |
| Whether counts 5–6 (ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel) could proceed | Lebron: DeSantis and Kraus failed to raise/litigate claims against trial counsel and prior habeas counsel; those failures warrant habeas-on-habeas | Commissioner: derivative of barred/waived claims so no good cause | Held: Partial reversal — portions alleging failure to litigate Conroy-related plea advice survive; other parts tied to waived claims fail |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional pretrial defects)
- State v. Johnson, 253 Conn. 1 (2000) (same principle under Connecticut law)
- State v. Peeler, 265 Conn. 460 (2003) (right to counsel-of-choice context)
- State v. Flanagan, 293 Conn. 406 (2009) (right of self-representation standards)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (1992) (habeas-on-habeas doctrine and Strickland burden)
- Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, 324 Conn. 548 (2017) (scope of habeas-on-habeas and §52-470 context)
- Parker v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 300 (2016) (standard of review and §52-470(b) dismissal procedure)
- Day v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn. App. 754 (2014) (cannot dismiss based on unpleaded defenses)
- James L. v. Commissioner of Correction, 245 Conn. 132 (1998) (defining “same ground” for successive petitions)