150 Conn.App. 30
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Petitioner Clarence Patterson pled guilty on March 31, 2008 to burglary, larceny and criminal mischief pursuant to a plea agreement calling for a three-year sentence "to run consecutive to his present sentence."
- At plea time Patterson was serving two concurrent sentences: a five-year Stamford sentence and a three-year Norwalk sentence.
- The judgment mittimus did not specify which prior sentence the new three-year term was consecutive to; the Department of Correction treated it as consecutive to the controlling (longer) Stamford five-year sentence.
- Patterson filed a habeas petition alleging counsel Tina D’Amato rendered ineffective assistance by failing to clarify whether the three-year term would run consecutive to the Norwalk (3-year) or Stamford (5-year) sentence, claiming he would have rejected the plea otherwise.
- The habeas court denied relief after finding D’Amato did not tell Patterson it would be consecutive to either specific sentence, Patterson knew he was serving both sentences and failed to ask for clarification, and his testimony lacked credibility.
- The habeas court partially denied certification to appeal; this appeal challenges that partial denial and the ineffective-assistance ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Patterson's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not clarifying which prior sentence the new sentence would be consecutive to | D’Amato failed to ensure Patterson understood whether the three-year term was consecutive to the Norwalk (3y) rather than the Stamford (5y) sentence, making his plea unknowing | D’Amato did not misinform Patterson; he knew both sentences and did not ask for clarification; plea canvass showed understanding | Court held counsel’s performance was not deficient; no credible evidence plea contemplated consecutive to Norwalk sentence |
| Whether Patterson established prejudice under Hill/Strickland (that he would have gone to trial absent counsel’s error) | Would have rejected plea and proceeded to trial if he had known it would be consecutive to the 5-year Stamford sentence | Even if performance deficient, no reasonable probability Patterson would have gone to trial given increased exposure as a persistent felony offender | Court did not reach prejudice prong because no deficient performance found; habeas court also found no prejudice if reached |
| Whether habeas court abused its discretion by partially denying certification to appeal | Denial prevented consideration of debatable issues regarding counsel’s performance and sentencing interpretation | Habeas court’s factual findings were not debatable among reasonable jurists; certification properly denied for most claims | Court found no abuse of discretion and dismissed the appeal |
| Whether the phrase "present sentence" was ambiguous or misapplied to the wrong prior sentence | The court’s varying use of "current" vs "present" sentence caused Patterson to accept one plea but reject an earlier one that morning | No meaningful distinction between terms; court’s ordinary meaning refers to the controlling (maximum) sentence | Court rejected Patterson’s distinction and credited alternative explanations for plea decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland prejudice prong to guilty-plea context)
- Kennedy v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 68 (discusses Strickland/Hill standards and habeas review of plea claims)
- Spyke v. Commissioner of Correction, 145 Conn. App. 419 (standard for reviewing denial of certification to appeal)
- State v. Dixson, 93 Conn. App. 171 (interpretation of plea agreement terms and intent of parties)