Peterson v. Commissioner of Correction
142 Conn. App. 267
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Petitioner Stewart Peterson filed a habeas corpus petition challenging trial counsel Dimyan’s effectiveness in the underlying criminal proceedings, focusing on plea negotiations in CR-06-0125329 and CR-06-0125803 and later jail credit on CR-06-0127604.
- Peterson was charged in CR-06-0125329 with criminal possession of a weapon, illegal possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle, narcotics possession, and a school proximity offense, with separate, subsequent charges arising in CR-06-0125803 and CR-06-0127604 while he remained in custody.
- On August 2, 2006, the prosecutor offered a seven-year total sentence suspended after three with probation; Peterson was given until September 20, 2006 to consider and rejected the offer, with the matters set on a firm jury docket on September 27, 2006.
- On October 23, 2006, Peterson was arrested again (CR-06-0127604) and charged with additional narcotics offenses, drug paraphernalia, drug sale, a controlled substance possession, and a suspended license violation, to which Dimyan represented him.
- Peterson was convicted at trial on CR-06-0125329 and sentenced January 17, 2007 to five years on each count, to run consecutively for a total of ten years; he pled guilty on the other two files, receiving concurrent or consecutive terms that yielded a total effective sentence of ten years concurrent with the trial sentence.
- The habeas court denied relief after trial and posttrial briefing; the appellate court affirmed, concluding Dimyan’s conduct did not render representation deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court used the proper standard for plea-offer effectiveness | Peterson argues Dimyan failed to adequately explain the offer and discuss trial prospects, violating applicable standards. | Dimyan maintained he explained the offer and the chances of success, and urged acceptance beyond mere persuasion. | No reversible error; standard properly applied and Dimyan's explanation found adequate. |
| Whether Dimyan’s handling of bond/ detention credits affected pretrial credits on later charges | Peterson asserts Dimyan’s failure to seek bond deprived him of pretrial detention credits on the later files. | Dimyan used custody status strategically within plea negotiations and acted within the bounds of professional judgment. | No error; actions fell within a reasonable professional strategy. |
| Whether the court improperly made a factual finding before the close of evidence | Peterson claims the court pre-judged issues regarding Dimyan’s knowledge of the law based on remarks during testimony. | The challenged remark does not compel a fatal inference of improper factfinding; no preserved objection or appeal-based review. | Affirmed; issue not reviewable and no reversible error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (right to effective assistance regarding plea negotiations)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (ineffective assistance in plea offer acceptance)
- Vazquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 424, 1 A.3d 1242 (Conn. App. 2010) (duty to provide informed plea advice; defendant decides final plea)
- Axel D. v. Commissioner of Correction, 135 Conn. App. 428, 41 A.3d 1196 (Conn. App. 2012) (standard for assessing ineffective assistance claims on habeas review)
- Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342, 53 A.3d 983 (Conn. 2012) (guidance on plea bargaining and ineffective assistance)