Maldonado v. Commissioner of Correction
2013 WL 900954
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Juan Maldonado was convicted of murder, possession of a sawed-off shotgun, and assault in 1995; sentenced to 55 years.
- During trial, Maldonado presented an insanity-like defense citing mental illness; psychiatrists testified he was psychotic and paranoid at the time.
- Trial evidence included psychiatric evaluations by Grayson and Zeman; Hartford Hospital report attributed actions to alcohol and drugs.
- Maldonado's first habeas petition (2002) claimed ineffective assistance by trial counsel; petition denied and affirmed on appeal.
- In the present (second) habeas petition (amended 2011), Maldonado claimed ineffective assistance by trial counsel (competency hearing request) and by habeas counsel; the habeas court denied certification to appeal.
- The appellate court dismissed Maldonado’s appeal, holding no abuse of discretion in denying certification; court found no sufficient evidence of ineffective assistance by trial or habeas counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial-counsel ineffectiveness claim was properly barred. | Maldonado argues new facts/evidence exist not in prior petition. | Claim rests on same grounds; no new facts or evidence. | Abuse of discretion not shown; claim barred. |
| Whether habeas counsel was ineffective for not raising trial-counsel's failure to seek a competency hearing. | Habeas counsel failed to raise unreasonable deficiency. | Evidence shows habeas counsel believed Maldonado competent; not ineffective. | No abuse; testimony supports competence and strategy. |
| Whether the court should reach trial-counsel effectiveness via habeas counsel claim. | Because habeas counsel was ineffective, merits should be reconsidered. | Separate standards; no link to grant relief. | Not reversible; no persuasive linkage to meritorious relief. |
| Whether appellate counsel’s performance regarding insufficiency of evidence was at issue. | Appellate counsel failed to raise claim of insufficiency of evidence. | Appellate counsel exercised sound professional judgment; not at issue. | Not within scope of this appeal; rejected as centerpiece. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (two-step habeas review prerequisite for certification)
- Policier v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 66 (2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of certification)
- Castonguay v. Commissioner of Correction, 300 Conn. 649 (2011) (deference to credibility; frivolous appeal standard)
- Petaway v. Commissioner of Correction, 49 Conn. App. 75 (1998) (demonstrating abuse requires debatable issues)
- McClendon v. Commissioner of Correction, 93 Conn. App. 228 (2006) (new ground not supported by new facts)
- Greene v. Commissioner of Correction, 96 Conn. App. 854 (2006) (credibility assessment by trier of fact)
- Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 453 (2011) (ineffective-assistance standard for habeas vs. appellate/ trial)