Pires v. Commissioner of Correction
2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 247
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Michael Pires was charged and convicted of a 2004 murder after a jury trial; he was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment.
- At a December 20, 2005 hearing Pires told his appointed attorney (Sullivan) he wanted to "represent himself"; Sullivan told the trial judge she did not think the court would permit self-representation on a murder charge and that Pires was angry and irrational.
- Sullivan later withdrew and new counsel (Sturman and Barrs) were appointed; Pires filed and then withdrew pro se motions during trial and later sought to dismiss counsel at sentencing, which the trial judge denied.
- On direct appeal the Connecticut Supreme Court held Pires did not clearly and unequivocally invoke the right to self-representation and upheld the conviction.
- Pires then filed an amended habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance because his trial lawyers failed to adequately convey his desire to represent himself; the habeas court held an evidentiary hearing, denied relief, and Pires appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding Pires failed to show counsel performed deficiently under Strickland by not conveying a clear, unequivocal request for self-representation.
Issues
| Issue | Pires' Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately convey Pires’ desire to represent himself | Counsel failed to inform the court of Pires’ clear and unequivocal request for self-representation | Counsel did not perform deficiently because Pires never made a clear, unequivocal request; counsel either informed the court or there was no such request to convey | Held: No ineffective assistance — petitioner failed to show a clear, unequivocal invocation and counsel did not perform deficiently |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test: performance and prejudice)
- State v. Pires, 310 Conn. 222 (direct appeal holding no clear, unequivocal invocation of self-representation)
- Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (deference to habeas court factfinding; mixed question review)
- Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 830 (summary of Strickland standard in Connecticut)
- Ouellette v. Commissioner of Correction, 154 Conn. App. 433 (no need to address both Strickland prongs if one fails)
- Smith v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 690 (issues not raised in habeas petition need not be considered on appeal)