Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, 131 Conn. App. 336

Eddie Rodriguez petitions for habeas relief after the habeas court denied certification to appeal from its denial of his second amended habeas petition.
Rodriguez claimed trial counsel Cannatelli rendered ineffective assistance due to an actual conflict of interest arising from Cannatelli’s prior criminal prosecution.
Cannatelli had been charged with bribery of a witness prior to representing Rodriguez; Cannatelli was acquitted of those charges in October 1991.
During Rodriguez’s trial in November–December 1991, Rodriguez raised concerns about Cannatelli’s conflict of interest; the trial court did not delay proceedings.
The habeas court found Cannatelli was prepared to go to trial and that media coverage of Cannatelli’s prosecution was minimal, declining to find a conflict under Phillips v. Warden.
On appeal, this Court (i) held the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal but (ii) affirmed on the merits that Rodriguez did not prove ineffective assistance due to an actual conflict.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the habeas court abuse discretion denying certification?	Rodriguez argues abuse of discretion under Lozada standards.	Cannatelli contends certification denial was proper.	Abuse of discretion found; certification should not have been denied.
Was there an actual conflict of interest under Phillips v. Warden?	Phillips-based risk that Cannatelli’s conduct would be imputed to Rodriguez existed.	Phillips does not create per se conflict; case-specific facts required.	No constitutional conflict proven; no prejudice established.
Did Cannatelli’s prosecution prevent proper preparation for Rodriguez’s trial?	Cannatelli’s focus on his own case impaired preparation for Rodriguez’s trial.	Petitioner offered no concrete record evidence of impaired preparation.	No actual conflict shown; preparation deemed reasonable.
Did Cannatelli’s conduct during voir dire amount to a conflict to protect his reputation?	Cannatelli protected his reputation at the expense of Rodriguez’s voir dire.	Claim not developed in habeas petition or at trial; not considered.	Claim not considered; no conflict findings entered.

Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112 (1991) (conflict analysis requires case-specific facts, not per se rule)
Adorno v. Commissioner of Correction, 66 Conn. App. 179 (2001) (conflict-free representation as a core component of effective counsel)
State v. Rodriguez, 61 Conn. App. 700 (2001) (affirmation that trial court’s hearing on conflict not required in all cases)
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (standard for abuse-of-discretion review in habeas appeals)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (abuse-of-discretion review framework for certification appeals)
Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 389 (2006) (encouragement to proceed further where unaddressed issues exist; later affirmed)