Leconte v. Commissioner of Correction, 207 Conn.App. 306

Between Oct–Dec 2009 the petitioner, Alain Leconte, participated in three armed robberies (Norwalk, Greenwich, Stamford); one victim died and another was shot but survived.
After arrest for the Stamford robbery, Leconte gave a written statement confessing to Stamford; while incarcerated on that charge he made inculpatory statements about the Norwalk and Greenwich robberies to a cooperating cellmate who wore a recording device.
The state joined the three separate robbery informations for a single trial; at trial the recorded cellmate statement was admitted and a jury convicted Leconte; he received a lengthy aggregate sentence.
On direct appeal the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed; it assumed arguendo any suppression error and found any error harmless given overwhelming Stamford evidence.
In a habeas petition Leconte claimed (1) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present mental‑health evidence to suppress or to impeach the cellmate recording, and (2) appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising a preserved joinder claim on direct appeal.
The habeas court found extensive mental‑health records, a report finding malingering, no testimony from trial/appellate counsel about their investigative or strategic choices, and concluded Leconte failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice; the court denied relief and certified appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial counsel ineffective for failing to investigate/present mental‑illness evidence to suppress cellmate recording and to impeach witnesses	Leconte: counsel failed to investigate and present evidence of schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder and other disorders that would have shown the cellmate statement was involuntary or unreliable	Respondent: records and a report (Frazer) show malingering; no evidence about counsel’s investigation or tactical reasons; strongest evidence of guilt independent of the recording	Habeas court affirmed — petitioner failed to show counsel’s performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced; voluntariness not shown to be undermined; cross‑exam claim inadequately briefed
Appellate counsel ineffective for not raising preserved objection to joinder on direct appeal	Leconte: Foster should have argued the trial court erred in joining the three robbery cases, which prejudiced the defense	Respondent: evidence from the cases was cross‑admissible (admissions, ballistics); counsel may reasonably winnow issues; petitioner failed to show merit or prejudice	Declined review for inadequate briefing; habeas court correctly required proof of deficient performance and prejudice

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel — performance and prejudice)
State v. Leconte, 320 Conn. 500 (Conn. 2016) (direct appeal affirming convictions; harmless‑error analysis regarding admitted statements)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (Conn. 2012) (standard for joinder — cross‑admissibility or Boscarino factors)
State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714 (Conn. 1987) (factors to consider when joinder is potentially prejudicial)
State v. DeAngelis, 200 Conn. 224 (Conn. 1986) (psychiatric disorder alone does not render admissions involuntary)
Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2008) (discussion of Strickland and the presumption of effective assistance)