Norton v. Commissioner of Correction
2012 WL 10856
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Norton and his brother confronted individuals on Oak Street, New Britain, and Norton shot Soto at close range; Soto became quadriplegic.
- On May 9, 2005 Norton pled guilty to first-degree assault and carrying a pistol without a permit, plus nine probation violations; sentenced to 22 years.
- Norton did not file a direct appeal from his conviction.
- On February 25, 2009 Norton filed an amended habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate witnesses, arrange blood analysis on a pipe, and discuss self-defense.
- Habeas trial produced only Norton and his trial counsel as witnesses; nine eyewitnesses were identified by trial counsel as consistent.
- Habeas court denied the petition and the certification to appeal; the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not investigating witnesses? | Norton asserts counsel failed to interview witnesses who could help his defense. | Counsel interviewed available witnesses; nine eyewitnesses provided consistent statements; further investigation would not have helped. | No deficiency; investigation deemed reasonable given nine corroborating witnesses. |
| Was trial counsel ineffective for not obtaining blood analysis on the pipe? | Testing would support self-defense by showing injury to brother. | There was no evidence of injury to brother and no reason testing would help; petitioner's burden to show benefit failed. | No deficient performance; lack of evidentiary basis and potential usefulness undermined claim. |
| Did counsel meaningfully discuss the self-defense claim with Norton? | Counsel refused to discuss self-defense. | ||
| Counsel discussed the self-defense theory at length and explained its weakness; Norton chose to plead guilty as a result. | Counsel's discussions were meaningful; no deficiency found. | ||
| Did the habeas court apply an improper prejudice standard (Strickland-Hill)? | Potential prejudicial analysis not aligned with Strickland-Hill. | No error in prejudice analysis; standard supported by law. | No reversible error; prejudice analysis properly considered within framework. |
| Is the denial of certification to appeal an abuse of discretion? | Issues on ineffective assistance were debatable among jurists and warrant review. | No debatable issues; certification properly denied. | Appeal dismissed; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 () (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 () (modifies Strickland for guilty pleas)
- Mock v. Commissioner of Correction, 115 Conn.App. 99 (2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard and merits review for habeas)
- Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction, 66 Conn.App. 61 (2001) (reasonableness of investigation from attorney's perspective)
- Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction, 51 Conn.App. 615 (1999) (burden to show beneficial investigation evidence)
- Holley v. Commissioner of Correction, 62 Conn.App. 170 (2001) (injury to support need for investigation; evidence required)
- Baillargeon v. Commissioner of Correction, 67 Conn.App. 716 (2002) (likely impact of evidence on plea vs. trial outcome)
- Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 424 (2010) (credibility and appellate review of habeas findings)