Martinez v. Commissioner of Correction
2013 WL 6632070
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Martinez shot and killed Hector Pacheco in 1996; arrested years later and tried twice; convicted of first‑degree manslaughter with a firearm in 2003 and sentenced to 40 years (30 to serve) plus probation.
- Trial counsel Howard A. Lawrence represented Martinez at both trials; first trial ended in a mistrial, second resulted in conviction.
- Martinez filed consolidated habeas petitions alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three grounds: (1) failure to move to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to an alleged untimely probable‑cause hearing under § 54‑46a; (2) failure to request a special credibility instruction for jailhouse informants; and (3) failure to meaningfully explain the state’s final plea offer (language/interpretation and new witnesses concerns).
- At the habeas trial Martinez relied largely on briefs and transcripts and did not introduce evidence explaining counsel’s strategic choices; Lawrence testified and the habeas court credited his account over Martinez’s.
- The habeas court denied relief on all three ineffective‑assistance claims; the Appellate Court affirmed, deferring to the habeas court’s credibility findings and applying Strickland standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was deficient for not moving to dismiss for untimely probable‑cause hearing under § 54‑46a | Martinez: 60‑day clock began Aug 24, 2001; counsel’s failure to move was per se unreasonable and unsupported by strategy | Respondent/Lawrence: No record evidence of incompetence; counsel may have had strategic or legal reasons not to move; petitioner failed to prove deficiency | Affirmed — petitioner failed to overcome presumption of reasonable strategy; no evidentiary showing of deficient performance |
| Whether counsel was deficient for not requesting a special credibility instruction for jailhouse informants | Martinez: informants required special credibility instruction; counsel should have requested it | Respondent/Lawrence: No evidence why counsel agreed to charge; possible tactical reasons; prevailing law at trial did not clearly require such instruction | Affirmed — petitioner presented no evidence to rebut that counsel’s conduct could be sound strategy; claim failed |
| Whether counsel failed to meaningfully explain the state’s final plea offer (including language barrier and new witnesses) | Martinez: counsel only relayed years of offered sentence, did not explain implications or new witness evidence; Martinez’s limited English required interpreter | Respondent/Lawrence: He explained risks, recommended accepting 15‑year offer, discussed new witnesses and consequences; Martinez insisted on trial | Affirmed — habeas court credited Lawrence’s testimony; no clear error in finding counsel adequately explained the plea |
| Sufficiency of habeas record and standard of review on credibility | Martinez: challenges to court’s findings as incorrect | Respondent: trial court as factfinder entitled to credibility deference; Strickland governs and petitioner bears burden | Affirmed — appellate court defers to habeas court’s credibility findings and requires demonstrable evidence to satisfy Strickland |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (habeas evidentiary hearing appropriate to test counsel’s trial‑strategy reasons for not objecting to jury instructions)
- State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (2005) (jailhouse informant instruction required where informant received benefits in exchange for testimony)
- State v. Martinez, 95 Conn. App. 162 (appellate decision on Martinez’s underlying conviction)