Lopez v. Commssioner of Correction
AC43240 Appendix
| Conn. App. Ct. | Nov 2, 2021Background
- Ramon Lopez (the petitioner) was convicted after a jury trial for murder, two counts of attempted murder, and two counts of first‑degree assault arising from the Pettway store shooting (Feb. 2, 2002) and sentenced to an effective 100 years; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Three related incidents feature in the record: (1) Randy Armstrong was shot in the foot on Jan. 25, 2002; (2) a P.T. Barnum Apartments home invasion on Jan. 27, 2002 involving Jerry Kollock and others; (3) the Pettway store mass shooting on Feb. 2, 2002 in which Shariff Abdul‑Hakeem was killed and Manual Rosado and Gary Burton were wounded.
- Forensic testing linked cartridge casings from the Pettway shooting to a pistol used in several earlier shootings, including the P.T. Barnum home invasion; the firearms report and case numbers were provided to defense counsel pretrial.
- Lopez filed an earlier habeas petition (challenging trial counsel Lawrence Hopkins) that was denied by Judge Fuger and affirmed on appeal; new habeas claims in this action challenged Brady violations, ineffective assistance by trial and prior habeas counsel, and asserted actual innocence.
- The habeas court conducted extensive factfinding (including new witness Marcus Mahoney), but rejected Lopez’s Brady claims, denied ineffective assistance claims (both trial and prior habeas counsel where appropriate), and held Lopez failed to meet the Miller test for actual innocence; the amended petition was denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lopez) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brady nondisclosure | State withheld exculpatory info (witness deals, investigatory files, links between Pettway and P.T. Barnum) | State disclosed firearms report and incident numbers; no suppression of material evidence; chargi ng decisions not Brady | Denied — state met Brady by producing firearms analysis and identifiers; nonprosecution decisions not Brady evidence |
| Res judicata / IAC (trial counsel Hopkins) | Hopkins was ineffective for failing to present alibi and third‑party culpability evidence | Earlier habeas already litigated Hopkins’ effectiveness; claims based on facts available earlier are barred | Hopkins‑based claims dismissed where duplicative of prior habeas; earlier denial stands |
| IAC (prior habeas counsel Mullaney & Rozwaski) | Prior habeas counsel were ineffective for not pursuing alibi/third‑party theories and for investigative or proffer deficiencies | Counsel made reasonable strategic choices after investigation; selected stronger alibi claim; no deficient performance or prejudice shown | Denied — counsel’s tactical choices were reasonable; petitioner failed to prove both Strickland prongs and the Lozada two‑tier showing |
| Actual innocence (Miller test) | New evidence (Marcus Mahoney testimony, DelGiudice testimony, weapon linkage) proves factual innocence such that no reasonable juror would convict | New evidence is impeaching or inconsistent; Mahoney lacks credibility; core identifications (Rosado, Tony Payton) remain credible | Denied — petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence actual innocence under Miller; new evidence not dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose material exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1972) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose promises/consideration to witnesses)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (Conn. 1992) (standards for challenging effectiveness of prior habeas counsel)
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (Conn. 1997) (standard for actual innocence claims in habeas proceedings)
- Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 544 (Conn. 2011) (clarifies Miller; distinguishes impeachment from affirmative proof of innocence)
- State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633 (Conn. 2005) (disclosure obligations and the defendant’s duty to seek known evidence)
- Skakel v. State, 295 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2010) (newly discovered evidence standard and due diligence)
- Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225 (Conn. 2015) (elements of Brady claim)
- Demers v. State, 209 Conn. 143 (Conn. 1988) (state’s duty to disclose evidence within its knowledge)
- Reynolds v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 750 (Conn. 2016) (prosecutorial charging discretion not subject to Brady disclosure)