Moody v. Commissioner of Correction, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 109

Moody was tried twice for murder and assault in New Haven; second trial resulted in guilty verdicts on murder and assault, with prior mistrial on the charges.
Moody filed a first habeas petition alleging ineffective trial counsel; it was denied and this court dismissed the appeal.
Moody then filed an amended habeas petition in 2008 asserting ineffective trial counsel, ineffective appellate counsel, and instructional error.
The habeas court denied the petition; Moody obtained certification to appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which is reviewing the decision.
The central, underlying instructional issues concern: (i) failure to charge lesser included offenses to murder, (ii) use of the entire statutory definition of intent, and (iii) shifting the burden to Moody on self-defense and consciousness of guilt.
The appellate court affirms the habeas court, applying res judicata and procedural-default defenses to bar portions of Moody’s claims and rejecting the remaining claims on the merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Res judicata barred Moody's trial-counsel claim	Moody's claims were relitigated from the first habeas proceeding.	The amended petition duplicatively asserts the same grounds as the prior petition.	Res judicata barred merits review of the trial-counsel claim.
Procedural-default bar for raised errors in trial instructions	The errors were not previously raised or addressed on direct appeal.	The claims were procedurally defaulted for failure to raise earlier and no cause/prejudice shown.	The claims are procedurally defaulted and fail.
Appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise instructional errors	Appellate counsel should have raised errors about lesser included offenses, the intent instruction, and burden-shifting in direct appeal.	No prejudice; the underlying claims lack merit or were unpreserved for direct review; Golding review would not yield reversal.	No ineffective assistance; Moody not prejudiced.

Moody v. Commissioner of Correction, 108 Conn.App. 96 (2008) (recounts prior habeas proceedings and issues)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (lords Golding standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Tok, 107 Conn.App. 241 (2008) (instructional-error review under Golding factors; charge viewed as a whole)
State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576 (1980) (trial court must generally be asked to charge lesser-included offenses; sua sponte is not required)
State v. Lopes, 78 Conn.App. 264 (2003) (reversible error when improper intent instruction not followed by proper instructions)
State v. DeBarros, 58 Conn.App. 673 (2000) (reversible error when improper intent instruction repeatedly given)
State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296 (2009) (consciousness of guilt instruction not constitutionally central)
State v. Joseph, 116 Conn.App. 339 (2009) (Golding review prerequisites; constitutional magnitude)
Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (2008) (distinguishes appellate-review standards for trial-counsel vs. appellate-counsel claims)
State v. Romero, 269 Conn. 481 (2004) (preserves Golding review for nonpreserved claims when appropriate)