194 Conn.App. 339
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background:
- Petitioner Thomas Rogers participated in a 1994 shooting; Safira McLeod overheard a postshooting conversation among Rogers and two companions but could not attribute specific statements to individual speakers.
- Trial counsel advised Rogers that McLeod’s testimony about that conversation would be inadmissible as hearsay; Rogers rejected the state’s 35‑year plea offer and sought a 20‑year disposition.
- At trial, the court admitted McLeod’s testimony as an adoptive admission; Rogers was convicted on all counts and received a total effective sentence of 60 years.
- Rogers filed an amended habeas petition alleging (1) ineffective assistance by trial counsel for misadvising him about McLeod’s testimony (causing him to reject the 35‑year plea) and (2) ineffective assistance by prior habeas counsel for failing to raise that claim earlier.
- The habeas court denied relief, finding Rogers’ retrospective claim that he would have accepted the 35‑year plea unreliable and concluding he failed to prove prejudice; the court certified the case for appeal.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, deferring to the habeas court’s credibility determinations and holding that Rogers failed to meet his burden to show it was reasonably probable he would have accepted the plea but for counsel’s advice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel’s alleged misadvice about admissibility of McLeod’s testimony caused prejudice by inducing Rogers to reject the 35‑year plea | Rogers: but for counsel’s incorrect hearsay advice he would have accepted the 35‑year plea | State: Rogers repeatedly indicated he would not accept more than 20 years, knew other inculpatory facts, and the habeas court should credit that | Held: Habeas court’s adverse credibility finding was not clearly erroneous; Rogers failed to prove prejudice, affirmed |
| Whether prior habeas counsel (Cannatelli) was ineffective for not raising the trial‑counsel claim | Rogers: Cannatelli should have raised the ineffective‑trial‑counsel claim earlier | State: That claim fails unless Rogers proves both trial and habeas counsel ineffective | Held: Court did not reach merits because Rogers failed to show prejudice from trial counsel; habeas‑counsel claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether the habeas court’s credibility finding (Rogers was sincere but unreliable about accepting the plea) was unsupported | Rogers: finding that he was both "sincere" and "unreliable" is paradoxical and unsupported | State: Credibility determinations are for the habeas court and entitled to deference | Held: Appellate court upheld the habeas court’s distinction between present sincerity and unreliable retrospective testimony |
| Proper standard of review for factual findings in a lapsed‑plea case | Rogers: urged application of a scrupulous examination/substantial‑evidence standard | State: Credibility was the primary issue; ordinary deference applies | Held: Scrupulous standard not applied because credibility was primary; habeas court’s findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (prejudice analysis for plea cases)
- Lozada v. Warden, 223 Conn. 834 (1992) (to show ineffective habeas counsel, must show both habeas and trial counsel ineffective)
- Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342 (2012) (prejudice in lapsed‑plea cases: reasonably probable acceptance and court would have accepted plea)
- Orcutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 724 (2007) (deference to habeas court factual findings and credibility assessments)
- Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (2013) (mixed questions of law and fact reviewed de novo as to legal application)