150 Conn.App. 371
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Perez was sentenced in 2006 for attempted assault (10 years, suspended after 3.5 years, followed by 3 years probation) and began probation in Nov. 2008.
- In Dec. 2008 Perez was implicated in an incident at a cousin’s residence; arrested in Jan. 2009 on burglary, assault, threatening, and harassment charges; a Part B persistent dangerous felony offender information was filed.
- On March 4, 2009 Perez was charged with violating his 2006 probation; he retained Attorneys Andrea Anderson and David Feliu, who prepared and tried the violation of probation (VOP) hearing in August 2009.
- The trial court found Perez violated probation after hearing state witnesses (including an unbiased responding officer) and Perez’s family witnesses; credibility determinations favored the state.
- After VOP sentencing Perez did “dead time” on the new charges; the state later offered a 10‑year concurrent plea. On September 17, 2009 Perez entered an Alford plea to burglary, assault, and the Part B persistent offender charge.
- Perez filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) the VOP hearing (inadequate preparation, theory, cross, evidence) and (2) advising/handling the Alford plea; the habeas court denied relief and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Ineffective assistance at VOP hearing (alleged inadequate prep, weak theory, poor cross, failure to produce landlord to show door undamaged) | Perez: counsel failed to prepare, present a coherent defense, impeach victim, and present evidence about the door, causing prejudice that changed the outcome | State: counsel thoroughly investigated, prepared witnesses, cross‑examined effectively; key officer corroboration and credibility findings would not have changed | Court: No prejudice shown under Strickland; credibility of officer and victim decisive, so habeas claim fails |
| 2) Ineffective assistance in advising re: Alford plea and Part B enhancement (failure to explain Part B) | Perez: Anderson did not adequately explain Part B/persistent offender exposure; had he understood, he would have rejected plea and gone to trial | State: Anderson explained charge and risks; Perez faced ~40 years with Part B; 10‑year concurrent deal (given existing 6‑year term and jail credit) was reasonable and Perez likely would not have risked trial | Court: No reasonable probability Perez would have gone to trial but for counsel’s errors; habeas claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62 (deference to habeas factual findings; mixed question review)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (right to effective assistance extends through first appeal of right; prejudice standard)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 (guilty‑plea ineffective assistance prejudice requires showing defendant would have gone to trial)