Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 338 Conn. 330

Moore was charged with robbery in the first degree and related enhancements (committed while on release; persistent felony offender), and a separate firearm-related felony; the state offered plea deals (two 10‑year offers with varying special parole terms and a 15‑year offer).
Moore believed his best trial theory would reduce liability to robbery in the third degree and that the maximum sentence for that offense would be about five years, so he rejected the plea offers and proceeded to trial.
A jury convicted Moore on all charges; he received an effective 34‑year sentence.
Moore filed a habeas petition claiming trial counsel Ovian rendered ineffective assistance by failing to correct Moore’s expressed, material misunderstanding about his maximum exposure if convicted only of robbery in the third degree (i.e., that statutory enhancements would still apply).
The habeas court denied relief, expressly crediting Ovian’s testimony that he likely advised Moore the enhancements applied and that exposure would exceed ten years; the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Moore's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether counsel must correct a client’s expressed, material legal misunderstanding that influences a plea decision	Counsel has a duty to correct such misunderstandings to permit an informed plea decision	Requiring correction of every theoretical exposure would be unduly broad	Yes — counsel must address an expressed, material misunderstanding that appears to affect the plea decision
Whether Ovian rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise Moore about sentencing exposure for robbery in the third degree (with enhancements)	Ovian failed to correct Moore’s belief that third‑degree robbery would limit exposure to ~5 years, causing Moore to reject pleas	Habeas court credited Ovian’s testimony that he likely advised Moore the enhancements applied; Moore failed to prove Ovian did not advise him	Moore failed to meet his burden to show deficient performance; habeas denial and Appellate Court dismissal affirmed

Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (importance of plea bargaining and counsel responsibilities during plea negotiations)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (prejudice analysis where plea negotiation errors occur)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel must advise on clear, material collateral consequences of pleas)
Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342 (Connecticut precedent on ineffective assistance during plea negotiation)
Purdy v. United States, 208 F.3d 41 (no mechanical checklist; advice must be fact‑specific)
United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39 (defense counsel must inform client of sentencing exposure to allow informed plea decisions)
Lee v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1958 (material collateral consequences can be determinative of plea decisions)
Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, 319 Conn. 548 (application of Strickland in Connecticut plea context)