131 Conn. App. 839
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Petitioner Monteral Morris was charged with multiple offenses including attempted murder, various firearm offenses, robberies, larcenies, unlawful discharge of a firearm, and reckless endangerment.
- Petitioner pled guilty under the Alford doctrine to robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a firearm, with a sentence of 15 years, within the court’s indicated range.
- Petitioner did not appeal the conviction.
- On December 18, 2009, Morris filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel Gary Mastronardi.
- Claims: counsel failed to file or adequately pursue a motion to dismiss or suppress based on photographic arrays, and failed to investigate to impeach the state’s evidence (notably a statement by Anthony Castle Mayo).
- Habeas court denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus and later denied certification to appeal; appellate review followed the Simms two-pronged standard for certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mastronardi’s performance was deficient for not moving to dismiss or suppress | Mastronardi failed to file or pursue suppression, potentially affecting identification. | Counsel made a tactical, time-limited decision; suppression would be unlikely to succeed and would affect plea offers. | No abuse of discretion; decisions not to file were reasonable and not deficient. |
| Whether Mastronardi’s failure to investigate Mayo’s statement prejudiced the defense | Additional investigation could have undermined the state’s case by impeaching evidence. | No showing that further investigation would have aided the defense; Mayo’s statement was corroborative. | No prejudice shown; habeas court did not abuse discretion in denying certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (two-pronged test for certification to appeal; abuse of discretion and merits)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (continued applicability of Simms standards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient performance and prejudice prongs)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (applies to guilty-plea ineffective assistance standard; prejudice focus on plea)
- Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 124 Conn.App. 740 (2010) (plea-related ineffectiveness standard; Hill guidance)
- Gudino v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn.App. 719 (2010) (prejudice prong in habeas context; look to real-world impact)
- Farnum v. Commissioner of Correction, 118 Conn.App. 670 (2010) (standard for reviewing habeas ineffectiveness claims; deference to factual findings)
- Holley v. Commissioner of Correction, 62 Conn.App. 170 (2001) (burden to show benefit of additional investigation; Holley applied)
- In re Diamond J., 121 Conn.App. 392 (2010) (unsigned transcript sufficient for review in habeas context)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (Alford plea acceptance standard cited for plea context)