Rosa v. Commissioner of Correction
2017 Conn. App. LEXIS 69
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioner Vincente Rosa was convicted after a jury trial for felony murder and firearm offenses arising from a December 23, 2002 shooting; his conviction rested principally on a confession.
- During deliberations the jury sent a note expressing fear for their safety, stating jurors worried about possible retribution from the petitioner’s family standing in the courthouse lobby.
- Trial counsel Bruce Lorenzen did not move for a mistrial or conduct further voir dire about juror bias; the trial judge addressed the jury on the record and offered security measures.
- The jury acquitted Rosa of one charge but found him guilty of felony murder and related firearm counts; he was sentenced to an effective 54 years.
- Rosa filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance under Strickland based on (a) counsel’s failure to advise adequately about plea offers (briefed inadequately), (b) failure to move for a mistrial or further voir dire after the jury note (fully litigated), and (c) failure to present family testimony at sentencing (briefed inadequately).
- The habeas court credited Lorenzen’s testimony that the decision not to move for a mistrial was strategic to preserve a chance of acquittal and denied relief; the Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving for a mistrial after jurors expressed safety concerns | Rosa: The jury note indicated bias/fear that warranted mistrial; counsel’s failure was deficient and prejudicial | Respondent: Counsel’s choice was strategic, made after consultation; court addressed jurors and no clear bias shown; no reasonable probability mistrial would be granted | Court held counsel’s decision was a reasonable tactical choice; habeas court’s credibility finding for Lorenzen upheld; claim denied |
| Whether counsel inadequately advised Rosa regarding plea offers (briefed inadequately) | Rosa: Counsel failed to advise about pleas adequately (argued in conclusory fashion) | Respondent: Habeas court made factual findings contrary to Rosa’s assertions; Rosa failed to attack those findings | Appellate court declined to review due to inadequate briefing and failure to challenge habeas court’s factual findings |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present family testimony at sentencing (briefed inadequately) | Rosa: Family testimony about learning disabilities and background would have aided mitigation | Respondent: Habeas court found no credible evidence supporting this claim | Appellate court declined to review due to inadequate briefing and failure to attack dispositive findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Rosa, 104 Conn. App. 374 (Conn. App. 2007) (direct appeal reciting trial facts)
- State v. Francione, 136 Conn. App. 302 (Conn. App. 2012) (appellate courts defer to trial court credibility findings)
- Newland v. Commissioner of Correction, 322 Conn. 664 (Conn. 2016) (standard for clear error in appellate review)