Merle S. v. Commissioner of Correction
167 Conn. App. 585
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Petitioner Merle S. pleaded guilty in 2010 to first‑degree assault and risk of injury to a child, admitted probation violations, and received a 15‑year sentence (execution suspended after nine years). He did not move to withdraw the plea or appeal it directly.
- In a 2014 amended habeas petition, he alleged (1) his plea was involuntary because he was heavily medicated (Risperdal) and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate or disclose his medicated/mental state before the plea.
- The Commissioner of Correction raised procedural default as to any independent due‑process claim that the plea was involuntary (i.e., separate from an ineffective‑assistance claim).
- At the habeas trial, the court credited trial counsel’s testimony that the petitioner appeared alert, understood the plea, and denied taking medication that day; competency evaluations during the case found the petitioner competent.
- The habeas court held the standalone involuntariness claim was procedurally defaulted, but it reached and rejected the ineffective‑assistance claim on the merits, finding counsel’s performance reasonable and the petitioner not credible.
- Petitioner sought certification to appeal; the habeas court denied certification. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the habeas court on both procedural default and ineffectiveness grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion by certifying denial of appeal on plea‑involuntariness claim | Merle: plea involuntary due to heavy medication; related ineffective assistance prevented earlier challenge | Comm’r: any independent involuntariness claim is procedurally defaulted because not raised on direct appeal or by motion to withdraw plea | Court: independent involuntariness claim procedurally defaulted; habeas court did not abuse discretion denying certification |
| Whether ineffective assistance claim (failure to investigate/disclose medication) was procedurally defaulted | Merle: he raised ineffective assistance in response to the return, so claim is not defaulted | Comm’r: ineffective‑assistance claim was considered and can be decided on merits; independent claim is the one defaulted | Court: ineffective‑assistance claim was not defaulted but was rejected on the merits |
| Whether counsel was deficient for failing to investigate petitioner’s Risperdal use and competency | Merle: counsel should have investigated medication/competency and informed court; that deficiency caused an involuntary plea | Comm’r: counsel reasonably relied on competency evaluations, petitioner’s representations, and plea canvass answers; no deficiency | Court: counsel’s conduct was within reasonable professional norms; no deficient performance found |
| Whether petitioner showed prejudice sufficient to satisfy Hill/Strickland for plea case | Merle: would not have pleaded if competent advice/investigation had occurred | Comm’r: petitioner failed to prove credible evidence he was overly medicated or that he would have insisted on trial | Court: petitioner failed to carry burden of prejudice; no relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (sets standard for showing abuse of discretion in denial of certification to appeal)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 (explains interaction of procedural default and ineffective‑assistance claims tied to guilty pleas)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 (procedural default rule for post‑plea collateral challenges)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (establishes prejudice analysis for ineffective assistance claims arising from guilty pleas)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑pronged standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ricks v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 497 (standard of review for habeas factual findings and legal conclusions)
- State v. Kendrick, 314 Conn. 212 (deference to credibility findings based on firsthand observation)
- Caban v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn. App. 165 (ineffective‑assistance allegations tied to plea avoid procedural default)
- Hinds v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn. App. 837 (procedural default described for collateral proceedings)
- Shelton v. Commissioner of Correction, 116 Conn. App. 867 (summarizes Strickland/Hill standards in plea context)
- Mock v. Commissioner of Correction, 115 Conn. App. 99 (addresses burdens and standards on habeas ineffective‑assistance claims)