Parker v. Commissioner of Correction
149 A.3d 174
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Edward Parker pleaded guilty under Alford to murder in 1999 and was sentenced to 30 years; he later filed multiple collateral attacks.
- Parker filed two prior state habeas petitions: Parker I (ineffective assistance of trial counsel; denied after trial) and Parker II (ineffective assistance of trial and first habeas counsel alleging failure to move to suppress; denied after hearing).
- In 2011 Parker filed a third habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance by trial counsel (count one), first habeas counsel (count two), and second habeas counsel (count three) for failing to litigate under the Hill (Strickland-Hill) standard.
- The Commissioner moved for summary judgment, arguing counts one and two were successive and that res judicata/collateral estoppel barred the claims; the habeas court granted summary judgment on counts one and two but initially left count three for further proceedings.
- The court later dismissed count three on collateral estoppel grounds, reasoning the prior habeas judgments necessarily resolved the underlying issues about trial counsel’s performance so Parker could not relitigate them against second habeas counsel.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: counts one and two were successive; count three was barred by collateral estoppel because earlier courts had necessarily decided trial counsel’s lack of deficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counts one and two were impermissible successive habeas claims | Parker: counts raise new legal standard (Strickland-Hill) and thus are not successive | Commissioner: counts repeat same legal grounds and seek same relief; no new facts or evidence | Held: counts one and two are successive; summary judgment proper |
| Whether count three (claim against second habeas counsel) is barred by res judicata | Parker: claim against second habeas counsel not previously litigated, so res judicata does not apply | Commissioner: though not barred by res judicata, claim is precluded by collateral estoppel because prior judgments decided the underlying issues | Held: res judicata inapplicable, but collateral estoppel bars count three |
| Whether collateral estoppel applies to ineffective-assistance claim against second habeas counsel | Parker: second counsel’s failure to raise Strickland-Hill is distinct and should be litigable | Commissioner: previous habeas trials necessarily determined trial counsel was not deficient, so relitigation is barred | Held: collateral estoppel applies because prior courts necessarily decided trial counsel’s lack of deficiency |
| Whether Parker showed good cause under §52-470(b)(1) to proceed on count three | Parker: asserted difference in prejudice standards (Hill vs Strickland) constituted good cause | Commissioner: no new facts or evidence; prior rulings resolved underlying factual issues | Held: court alternatively found no good cause; appellate decision affirms dismissal on collateral estoppel grounds (did not reach good-cause merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficiency and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland framework to guilty-plea context; highlights different prejudice inquiry)
- Zollo v. Commissioner of Correction, 133 Conn. App. 266 (defines successive habeas petition standard in Connecticut)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 365 (discusses Strickland prongs and dismissal when deficiency not shown)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 294 (explains res judicata and collateral estoppel limits in habeas context)