Moye v. Commissioner of Correction
81 A.3d 1222
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- In 2003 the victim was fatally shot; petitioner Marcus Moye, a member of a rival gang, was identified by officers and later charged with murder and carrying a pistol without a permit; he was convicted and sentenced to 50 years, and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- A witness (Gore) reported an attempted robbery by Moye on the same evening several blocks from the homicide; Officer Reynolds observed a bicyclist matching a description and reportedly filed a police report placing a bicyclist (claimed by Moye to be him) away from the murder scene.
- In 2011 Moye filed an amended habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present an alibi defense and for failing to raise a double jeopardy claim on trial and appeal.
- The habeas court found Moye never told trial counsel about an alibi; it credited counsel’s testimony and concluded counsel’s performance was not deficient. The court alternatively found no prejudice even if counsel had been deficient.
- Moye did not raise the double jeopardy claim in the habeas proceedings; he argued on appeal that a prior related pistol charge had been dismissed and that he was thus prosecuted twice under the same statute.
- The habeas court denied relief and certified the appeal; the appellate court affirmed, declining to consider unpreserved arguments and applying Strickland and Connecticut procedural doctrines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/present an alibi | Moye: Counsel should have discovered Reynolds’ police report and presented an alibi that would have created reasonable doubt | State: Moye never informed counsel of an alibi; court credited counsel’s testimony that he was unaware, so performance was not deficient | Court affirmed: no deficient performance (court declined to address prejudice) |
| Whether failure to raise double jeopardy deprived Moye of effective assistance | Moye: He was previously charged (and the charge dismissed) for the same § 29-35 conduct, so counsel should have raised double jeopardy | State: Claim was not raised in habeas trial and record does not support review; Golding review is unavailable in habeas appeals | Court affirmed: declined to review the unpreserved double jeopardy claim under Golding or plain error doctrines |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (criteria for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 129 Conn. App. 188 (2011) (court will not consider claims not raised in habeas petition or decided by habeas court)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 (2009) (plain error doctrine reserved for extraordinary situations affecting fairness and integrity of proceedings)