Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction
169 Conn. App. 813
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- In 2001 Sanders was tried and convicted of two counts of first‑degree assault and of being a persistent dangerous felony offender; he received a 40‑year sentence.
- Sanders filed multiple habeas petitions; this appeal arises from his third (operative) habeas petition challenging the effectiveness of trial counsel Robert Berke and of first habeas counsel Sebastian DeSantis.
- Operative habeas claims: (1) Berke failed to advise Sanders properly about a reported 8‑year plea offer (no recommendation), (2) Berke failed adequately to investigate or advise about accessorial liability, and (3) DeSantis was ineffective for not alleging Berke’s plea‑advice ineffectiveness in the first habeas petition.
- At the habeas trial Berke testified he discussed strengths/weaknesses, exposure, and plea terms but routinely did not recommend whether clients should accept pleas; Sanders testified he would have accepted the 8‑year offer if properly advised.
- The habeas court (Judge Fuger) found Berke and DeSantis effective, emphasizing Sanders’ insistence on innocence, Berke’s discussion of plea terms, and insufficient proof that a judge would have accepted the 8‑year plea; certification to appeal was denied.
- The Appellate Court reviewed whether denial of certification was an abuse of discretion by assessing the merits of the underlying ineffective‑assistance claims and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Sanders' Argument | Commissioner (Respondent) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Berke’s failure to give a recommendation about an 8‑year plea was deficient assistance | Berke failed to give professional advice/opinion on whether to accept plea; that omission was objectively unreasonable under Strickland/Barlow | Berke adequately discussed strengths/weaknesses and left decision to client; no per se duty to recommend | Court: Performance was deficient under Barlow (counsel must offer professional advice), but no prejudice shown re plea acceptance |
| Whether Sanders proved prejudice (reasonable probability judge would have accepted plea) | Sanders would have accepted the plea but for counsel’s deficiency; thus outcome would have been more favorable | Insufficient evidence that any trial judge would have conditionally accepted the 8‑year agreement; proof would be speculative | Court: Prejudice not shown—the record lacked reliable evidence a judge would have accepted the plea, so claim fails |
| Whether Berke failed to investigate or advise on accessorial liability | Berke had duty to investigate and advise client about modes of liability including accessory exposure | Sanders misled counsel about his role (claimed innocence/driver only); counsel was reasonable to proceed on that understanding and had no proven deficient investigation | Court: No deficient performance shown on accessorial liability; claim fails |
| Whether DeSantis was ineffective for not raising Berke‑plea claim in first habeas petition | DeSantis should have raised Berke’s plea‑advice ineffectiveness earlier; omission was deficient | Failure to prove underlying Berke claim means DeSantis’ omission caused no prejudice; thus no ineffective assistance | Court: DeSantis’ performance not shown deficient because the underlying Berke claim failed; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standards for appellate review when certification to appeal from habeas denied)
- Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342 (Conn. 2012) (prejudice standard for rejected/lapsed plea offers and judge acceptance requirement)
- Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn. App. 781 (Conn. App. 2014) (counsel must provide professional advice re plea offers; failure to advise can be deficient performance)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) (defense counsel must communicate plea offers and prejudice analysis for lost plea opportunities)