Myers v. Commissioner of Correction
128 Conn. App. 564
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Myers was charged in a two-part information with dependency-producing drug offenses; Part B sought enhancement as a repeat offender under § 21a-277(a).
- A separate information charged a probation violation; trial was by jury for narcotics offenses and by court for probation violation.
- After jury verdicts, the court found a probation violation and, during the same process, defense counsel waived a jury trial on Part B, claiming uncertainty about its applicability and relying on the presentence report.
- Myers was sentenced with an enhanced penalty based on the prior narcotics conviction; he appealed the sentence and the Part B waiver issue.
- Appellate and Supreme Court history: prior decisions held no automatic right to a separate Part B trial when the prior conviction was essentially uncontested, and Practice Book § 42-2 dictates retrial/plea on Part B after a first-part conviction.
- On May 15, 2009 Myers filed an amended habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; the habeas court denied certification to appeal, then denied the petition on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal | Myers asserts trial counsel's Part B waiver violated standards warranting appeal. | Respondent argues no debatable issue for reasoned appellate consideration. | No abuse of discretion; issues not debatable. |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by waiving Part B trial | Waiver deprived Myers of a proper Part B determination and canvass required by Practice Book § 42-2. | Counsel participated in the decision to waive; prior conviction evidence was irrefutable. | Not ineffective; waiver did not prejudice given uncontested prior conviction. |
| Whether Myers was prejudiced by the Part B waiver | Prejudice exists if counsel’s error could have altered outcome. | Given the prior conviction’s certainty, there is no reasonable probability of acquittal on Part B. | No prejudice shown; no reasonable probability of different outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278 (2009) (remanded on Part B procedures; prior right to separate trial deemed not automatic when prior conviction essentially uncontested)
- State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278 (2009) (precedent on Part B trial procedures and Practice Book § 42-2 compliance)
- Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn.App. 454 (2011) (habeas standard; plenary review of law, deference to factual findings)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (abuse of discretion standard for certification to appeal; factors for debatable issues)
- Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn.App. 424 (2010) (ineffective assistance standard requiring both deficient performance and prejudice)
- Green v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn.App. 348 (2010) (prejudice standard in ineffective assistance claims; reasonable probability of different outcome)