Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 154 A.3d 73

Petitioner Julian Marquez was convicted after a jury trial of felony murder, two counts of first‑degree robbery, and attempt to commit first‑degree robbery arising from a December 2003 home invasion in which one victim was killed.
Codefendant Edwin Soler testified for the state at Marquez’s trial, implicating Marquez as the shooter; Soler told the jury he had not been promised any benefit for his testimony.
After Soler’s testimony, defense counsel asked the court to inquire whether any deal existed; the prosecutor said only that plea discussions had occurred but no promises were made.
Months later Soler pleaded guilty to lesser robbery counts and received an effective 20‑year sentence (execution suspended after nine years); evidence at the habeas hearing showed only preliminary plea discussions between Soler and the state.
Marquez filed a habeas petition alleging Brady and due‑process violations based on the state’s failure to disclose an alleged agreement with Soler; the habeas court found no credible evidence of any agreement and denied relief and certification to appeal.
The Appellate Court dismissed Marquez’s appeal, holding the habeas court’s factual finding that no agreement existed was not clearly erroneous and therefore no Brady violation occurred.

Issue	Marquez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Did the prosecutor’s alleged nondisclosure of a plea agreement with Soler violate Brady and Marquez’s right to a fair trial?	Soler had an agreement (express or implied) for reduced charges/time in exchange for testimony; nondisclosure was favorable and material.	No enforceable agreement existed; only preliminary plea discussions and Soler’s mere hope for leniency—so nothing was suppressed that Brady required to be disclosed.	No Brady violation: habeas court’s finding that no agreement existed was not clearly erroneous, so no duty to disclose and no due‑process violation.
Did the habeas court abuse its discretion by denying certification to appeal?	The issue is debatable among jurists of reason given the record evidence of plea discussions.	The claim is not debatable because the record supports the habeas court’s credibility and factual findings.	Denial of certification was not an abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed.

Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (two‑pronged test for appellate review when habeas court denies certification to appeal)
State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (Conn. 2000) (discussions of leniency do not establish an implied agreement absent a factual link/commitment)
State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173 (Conn. 2010) (Brady requires disclosure of plea agreements with key witnesses; materiality and existence of agreement are threshold issues)
State v. Marquez, 291 Conn. 122 (Conn. 2009) (direct‑appeal opinion setting forth trial facts underlying the conviction)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of favorable material evidence violates due process)