Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, 143 A.3d 630

Petitioner Josue Rodriguez had prior convictions and probation conditions (including no contact with victim Damaris Sanchez); he violated probation after an incident in November 2008 and was sentenced to serve a previously suspended 12-year term.
On the same day the court revoked probation, Rodriguez pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford to attempted arson (second degree) and received an 8-year concurrent sentence; he did not timely appeal that guilty plea.
Rodriguez filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by Attorney William Gerace based on (1) failure to advise that the Alford plea would foreclose an appeal of the probation revocation and (2) a conflict of interest from Gerace’s prior, limited contact with Sanchez.
At the habeas trial the petitioner and Sanchez testified; Sanchez denied having confidential communications with Gerace, recanted parts of her earlier identification, and her police statement was admitted under State v. Whelan.
The habeas court found no credible evidence of privileged communications between Sanchez and Gerace, concluded Gerace’s performance was within reasonable professional judgment (effective cross-examination, alibi witness), and found no prejudice from alleged counsel errors.
The habeas court denied relief; the Appellate Court affirmed, applying Strickland and Hill standards and rejecting both the plea-advice and conflict-of-interest claims.

Issue	Rodriguez's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise that an Alford plea would foreclose a viable appeal of the probation revocation	Gerace failed to inform Rodriguez that pleading Alford to arson would prevent a meaningful appeal of the probation revocation; had he known, he would have gone to trial	Rodriguez acknowledged during plea canvass that he chose the plea for the favorable concurrent sentence; no credible testimony he would have insisted on trial	No prejudice under Hill/Strickland — plea canvass and petitioner’s own testimony show he chose the plea for the concurrent sentence, so claim fails
Whether Gerace had an actual conflict of interest from prior representation/contact with Sanchez that adversely affected representation	Prior representation/contact created a conflict that prevented Gerace from fully impeaching Sanchez (e.g., regarding mental health)	No evidence Sanchez communicated privileged information to Gerace; only a theoretical conflict; Gerace cross-examined Sanchez effectively and elicited favorable testimony; no actual prejudice	No actual conflict shown; even under Strickland, performance was not deficient and no reasonable probability of a different result — claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (modifies prejudice inquiry for guilty-plea cases — petitioner must show he would have gone to trial)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (authorizes guilty pleas without explicit admission of guilt when defendant acknowledges strong evidence)
State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986) (prior inconsistent signed statement of a nonparty witness admissible if declarant testifies and is cross-examined)
Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112 (1991) (framework for claims of actual conflict of interest — must show active representation of conflicting interests and adverse effect)
State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764 (2006) (plea canvass responses may be relied on in evaluating ineffective assistance claims)