Melendez v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn.App. 351

In 2004 DEA and a statewide task force used confidential source Jose Franco to make controlled buys at the Fireside Restaurant; audio/video surveillance recorded two buys from Melendez that field-tested positive for cocaine.
Melendez viewed a VHS copy of the surveillance before trial; defense counsel had earlier reviewed the original eight-millimeter tape.
The state later produced a DVD containing multiple segments (original, slowed, enhanced) shortly before trial; Melendez refused the state’s earlier five-year-to-serve plea offer after viewing video and elected trial.
Melendez was convicted by a jury of two counts of sale of narcotics and related charges and sentenced to 30 years; the conviction was affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Melendez filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for allegedly failing to investigate and advise properly about the video evidence and plea offer; the habeas court denied relief and certification to appeal.
On appeal from denial of certification, the Connecticut Appellate Court reviewed whether denial was an abuse of discretion and whether counsel’s assistance was ineffective under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Melendez)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion	Denial prevents review of habeas merits raising debatable ineffective-assistance issues	Habeas court reasonably concluded issues were not debatable among jurists of reason	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate/advise about video evidence and plea offer	Counsel failed to verify that the VHS the petitioner viewed matched the original tape and did not inform him of incriminating footage, so petitioner rejected a five-year plea he would have accepted	Counsel viewed the original eight‑millimeter tape, advised Melendez repeatedly about its incriminating nature and recommended accepting the five‑year offer; petitioner made an informed choice	Counsel’s performance was not deficient; no Strickland prejudice shown; habeas court correctly denied relief
Remedy sought: entitlement to the withdrawn five‑year plea	Petitioner seeks opportunity to accept the original five‑year offer as remedy for counsel’s alleged ineffectiveness	State contends no entitlement because counsel’s advice was adequate and the claim lacks merit	No remedy; conviction and sentence stand

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (standard for appellate review when habeas court denies certification)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (adopted Simms procedural test)
Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139 (1995) (counsel’s role in plea advice and informed evaluation)
Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn. App. 560 (2010) (effective assistance includes counsel’s informed opinion on pleas)
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (standards for ineffective assistance/plea‑related claims procedures)
State v. Melendez, 291 Conn. 693 (2009) (direct appeal ruling rejecting due process claim based on DVD disclosure)