153 Conn.App. 747
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Khari Miller was convicted of felony murder, first‑degree robbery, and conspiracy; sentenced to an effective 45 years; conviction affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Miller.
- At trial, eyewitness Letna Martin (the victim’s wife) testified that Miller entered holding a gun and shot her husband; she later gave prior testimony identifying the shooter as Puerto Rican.
- Miller filed an amended habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to impeach Martin with her prior sworn statement that the shooter was Puerto Rican.
- At the habeas trial, Miller did not call Martin to testify; the habeas court said that omission hindered its ability to assess credibility and found Miller failed to prove deficient performance.
- The habeas court alternatively found no prejudice because Miller had not been convicted of the offense that required identity as the shooter; it denied the petition and certification to appeal.
- The Appellate Court expressed concern that the habeas court could have relied on the transcript of Martin’s prior testimony to assess deficiency, but affirmed denial on the ground that Miller failed to prove prejudice; the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s cross‑examination of Martin was constitutionally inadequate | Miller: trial counsel should have impeached Martin with her prior statement that the shooter was Puerto Rican | State: any alleged omission did not prejudice Miller; identification was not essential to murder conviction he was convicted of | Court: grave concern about habeas court’s deficiency finding but did not resolve it because no prejudice shown |
| Whether failure to impeach Martin prejudiced the defense | Miller: impeachment could have undermined Martin’s identification and affected verdict | State: Miller was not convicted of the count requiring proof he was the shooter, so outcome wouldn’t change | Court: no reasonable jurist could disagree—no prejudice; denial affirmed |
| Whether habeas court abused discretion denying certification to appeal | Miller: issues are debatable among jurists and warrant review | State: issues not sufficiently debatable given lack of prejudice | Court: no abuse of discretion because prejudice question is not debatable |
| Whether other claims (prosecutorial impropriety; ineffective appellate counsel) warranted relief | Miller: additional trial/appellate counsel errors | State: claims lack merit | Court: review disclosed no error; claims rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance test)
- State v. Miller, 69 Conn. App. 597 (2002) (affirming Miller’s convictions on direct appeal)
- Spyke v. Commissioner of Correction, 145 Conn. App. 419 (2013) (standards for demonstrating abuse of discretion in denial of certification to appeal)
- Ramey v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn. App. 205 (2014) (application of Strickland in Connecticut habeas review)