211 Conn.App. 77
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Kacey Lewis represented himself at trial and was convicted of first‑degree kidnapping, third‑degree assault, interfering with an officer, and possession of narcotics; sentence: 25 years, execution suspended after 15, plus probation.
- Attorney Christopher Duby was appointed on direct appeal and raised a single claim: insufficiency of the evidence for kidnapping under State v. Salamon.
- Lewis filed an amended habeas petition asserting seven grounds: Grounds I–VI alleged various trial‑level constitutional errors (fair trial, right to present a defense, self‑representation, Brady violations, inadequate canvass, inadequate preparation); Ground VII alleged ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (Duby).
- The habeas court dismissed Grounds I–VI as procedurally defaulted for failing to show cause and prejudice and denied Ground VII for lack of evidence (Lewis was the sole witness and did not call Duby or present expert testimony).
- Lewis sought certification to appeal only the ineffective‑assistance‑of‑appellate‑counsel issue; the habeas court denied certification and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Lewis's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of habeas evidentiary rulings (motion to sequester Duby; motion to reconstruct record; subpoena) | Habeas court abused discretion in those rulings | Not in petition for certification; therefore not before the court | Not reviewable — Lewis did not include these issues in his petition for certification, so appellate court declined to consider them |
| Dismissal of Grounds I–VI as procedurally defaulted | Lewis argues he produced evidence at habeas trial sufficient to show cause and prejudice and rebut counsel‑presumption | Lewis offered only self‑serving testimony; no testimony from Duby or expert showing counsel’s decision‑making was unreasonable | Dismissal affirmed — petitioner failed to meet cause‑and‑prejudice burden to overcome procedural default |
| Denial of Ground VII (ineffective appellate counsel) | Duby was ineffective for raising only an insufficiency claim and omitting stronger appellate issues (Brady, confrontation, plain error, record corrections) | Lewis inadequately briefed the claims and presented no evidence (no Duby or expert testimony) to show deficient performance or prejudice | Denial affirmed — petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
| Denial of petition for certification to appeal | Habeas court abused discretion by denying certification | Petitioner did not meet Lozada/Simms factors; underlying claims lack merit and were inadequately supported | Denial not an abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (standards for reviewing counsel‑related claims in habeas/coram nobis contexts)
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (legal standard for kidnapping convictions challenged on sufficiency grounds)
- Hinds v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 56 (connecticut adoption of cause and prejudice standard for procedural default)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (statutory framework and standards for certification to appeal in habeas matters)
- Boyd v. Commissioner of Correction, 130 Conn. App. 291 (discussing need for evidence of counsel’s decision‑making to rebut presumption of competence)
- Camacho v. Commissioner of Correction, 148 Conn. App. 488 (applying Strickland in appellate‑counsel context)