155 Conn.App. 223
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Tomie Martin, petitioner, filed a second habeas petition challenging a 2004 conviction for felony murder, conspiracy to rob, and robbery.
- Habeas court denied the petition but granted permission to appeal; underlying facts recited from prior direct appeal: robbery at Gallo’s in Danbury, resulting in Gallo’s death.
- Martin was previously convicted in 2000 (reversed on direct appeal for improper judicial notice) and again in 2004; total sentence 75 years.
- At the habeas trial, issues centered on trial counsel’s effectiveness in impeaching a witness (Harris), failing to request an accomplice instruction, and calling a defense witness (Brown) who provided inculpatory identification evidence.
- Court uses Strickland v. Washington and its prongs (performance and prejudice) to evaluate each ineffective-assistance claim.
- Superior Court’s factual findings and reasonable inferences are reviewed for no clear error; mixed questions of law and fact are plenary on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment of Harris via impeachment evidence | Martin argues counsel failed to impeach Harris with her record and witness-protection payments. | State contends counsel reasonably limited cross-examination and highlighted immunity agreement; evidence of minor old convictions was less probative. | No deficient performance or prejudice; cross-examination and immunity evidence adequate. |
| Accomplice testimony jury instruction | Martin asserts counsel should have requested an accomplice-instruction regarding Harris. | State contends no obligation to give such instruction; Harris’s credibility adequately explored by existing instructions and evidence. | Not deficient; no prejudice; strategic decision supported by record. |
| Defense witness Brown and inculpatory identification | Martin claims Brown’s testimony, used to undermine identification, was improperly presented as a defense tactic. | State argues trial strategy to highlight Brown’s prior identification issues was reasonable. | Not deficient; strategy fell within reasonable professional assistance; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn. App. 167 (2005) (mixed questions reviewed de novo; Strickland framework applied)
- Santaniello v. Commissioner of Correction, 152 Conn. App. 583 (2014) (Strickland performance and prejudice standards in habeas)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (2008) (Strickland prongs for ineffective assistance)
- Martinez v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 307 (2013) (prejudice prong requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- State v. Bree, 136 Conn. App. 1 (2012) (accomplice testimony credibility and caution to jury)
- Ramey v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn. App. 205 (2014) (strong presumption of reasonable trial strategy; deferential review)
- Smith v. Commissioner of Correction, 148 Conn. App. 517 (2014) (standard for evaluating counsel's performance on appeal)
- Underwood v. Commissioner of Correction, 142 Conn. App. 666 (2013) (factors for providing accomplice-testimony instruction)
- State v. Martin, 100 Conn. App. 742 (2007) (prior reversal due to improper judicial notice in instructions)
- State v. Martin, 77 Conn. App. 818 (2003) (remand for new trial; discussion of credibility and strategy)