Misenti v. Commissioner of Correction
140 A.3d 222
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- In 2004 Misenti met a person online he believed was an adult; that person was a 14‑year‑old. Misenti provided pornographic materials and allegedly made sexual contact. He admitted kissing the victim to police pre‑arrest but later denied physical contact at habeas.
- Misenti was charged with multiple offenses; he retained attorney Richard Grabow. After plea negotiations, Misenti entered a nolo contendere plea (not an Alford plea) to sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury, with an agreed sentence. The court canvassed and accepted the plea as voluntary and with effective assistance of counsel.
- At the time of the plea Misenti said he felt emotionally/physically unable to proceed; during a recess he ingested Klonopin (prescription anti‑anxiety medication), which he did not tell counsel about. The recess was short (≈12 minutes).
- Years later Misenti filed a habeas petition alleging Grabow provided ineffective assistance (failure to investigate victim credibility/misrepresentations of age, failure to seek continuance or withdraw plea, failure to explain charges, failure to suppress statements). Habeas counsel filed to withdraw at start of trial; the habeas court denied the motion and proceeded.
- The habeas court credited Grabow’s testimony (that he knew the victim continued to misrepresent age before the plea, that he had explained charges and evidence) and found Misenti failed to prove prejudice (he would have insisted on trial). The court also found no proof Klonopin impaired Misenti during the plea. The habeas court denied relief and denied certification to appeal; this appeal followed and was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Misenti's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Grabow was ineffective for failing to investigate victim’s credibility and misrepresentations of age | Grabow didn’t discover or inform Misenti of victim’s continued misrepresentation; had Misenti known he would have gone to trial | Grabow knew of victim’s ongoing conduct before the plea and used it in negotiations; habeas court credited Grabow’s testimony | Denied — habeas court credibility findings supported; no abuse of discretion denying certification to appeal |
| Whether Grabow was ineffective for failing to seek continuance or move to withdraw plea based on Misenti’s claimed impairment from Klonopin and inadequate explanation of charges | Misenti was under Klonopin and confused; Grabow failed to get a continuance or withdraw plea and didn’t adequately explain elements/facts | No evidence Grabow knew Misenti took Klonopin; no evidence Klonopin took effect in the short recess; Grabow credibly explained charges; Misenti appeared lucid during canvass | Denied — petitioner failed to prove actual impairment or deficient performance; habeas court’s findings supported denial of certification |
| Whether denial of habeas counsel Rozwaski’s motion to withdraw required reversal | (Raised on appeal now) Rozwaski and Misenti lacked communication preventing adequate representation | Commissioner: claim not preserved — not included in petition for certification to appeal | Not considered — appellate court refused review because claim was not part of certified grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (denial of certification to appeal reviewed only for abuse of discretion standard)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑pronged ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (modified Strickland prejudice inquiry for guilty pleas: reasonable probability petitioner would have insisted on trial)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (defendant may enter plea while maintaining innocence if evidence strongly supports conviction)
- Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342 (2012) (discussion of right to effective assistance under state and federal constitutions)