194 Conn.App. 382
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In April 2004 the petitioner fatally stabbed two children and was charged with capital murder; he pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford pursuant to a plea deal that spared the death penalty and received life without parole.
- Years later he filed a habeas petition alleging trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate or advise him about an intoxication defense (claiming he smoked a PCP-containing "blunt").
- Trial counsel investigated the scene (no blunt recovered), obtained hospital blood/urine samples (no evidence those were tested for PCP introduced at trial), and procured three mental-health evaluations; counsel advised the petitioner that an intoxication defense was unlikely to succeed and that going to trial risked the death penalty.
- The habeas court found counsel’s investigation and advice reasonable: the physical and testimonial evidence (petitioner’s denial at the hospital, lack of recovered blunt, psych evals suggesting voluntary drug use, and facts showing premeditation) undercut an involuntary-intoxication defense.
- The habeas court denied relief and refused certification to appeal; the Appellate Court held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal | Robert contends the underlying ineffective-assistance claim is debatable and merits appellate review | State argues the habeas court reasonably concluded the claim lacked merit under Lozada/Simms standards | Denied — habeas court did not abuse discretion; issues not debatable among jurists of reason |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate/advise about an intoxication defense | Robert says counsel failed to test for PCP, investigate scene, or fully advise him, and he would have rejected the plea and gone to trial | State says counsel did investigate, obtained psych evaluations, advised that intoxication would not negate specific intent given the facts, and that trial risked death penalty | Denied — counsel’s performance fell within reasonable professional judgment; decision not to pursue intoxication defense was sound strategy |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (Strickland applied to guilty-plea context; petitioner must show reasonable probability he would not have pled)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standards for habeas certification/appeal review and Lozada factors)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (explains Alford pleas: defendant maintains innocence but concedes state has strong evidence)
- Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction, 332 Conn. 615 (Conn. 2019) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions when based on reasonable investigation)