Santana v. Commissioner of Correction
208 Conn. App. 460
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- Petitioner Luis A. Santana, Jr. was convicted of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and carrying a pistol without a permit; his convictions were affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Santana).
- In an amended habeas petition, Santana alleged trial counsel Lawrence Hopkins provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present a third-party culpability defense implicating Jose Montero and Juan Nunez.
- At the habeas trial the petitioner did not call Detective Michael Hunter (who had interviewed potential witnesses) and did not introduce signed out-of-court statements or signed photographic arrays; the petitioner did introduce a transcript of an interview with Joseph Mungo but not a signed identification.
- Witnesses produced (Jose Velazquez and Aixa Cruz) could not identify the shooter(s) from photographic arrays and did not identify Montero or Nunez.
- Hopkins testified he declined a third-party defense as inadmissible or unsupported and as a matter of trial strategy (concern about opening damaging evidence); the habeas court concluded the petitioner presented no affirmative evidence connecting Montero or Nunez to the crime and denied relief and certification to appeal.
- On appeal the court held the petitioner failed to show abuse of discretion in the denial of certification and failed to prove prejudice under Strickland, so the appeal was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion in denial of certification to appeal | Petitioner argued issues were debatable and adequate to encourage appeal (ineffective assistance re: third-party defense) | Respondent argued claim was unreviewable / not properly raised for certification | Court: Petitioner’s fee-waiver application adequately notified court of claim, but denial of certification not an abuse because issues were not debatable given lack of evidence |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to investigate/present third-party culpability | Hopkins failed to question Detective Hunter, present out‑of‑court witness statements, or introduce Mungo’s identification implicating others | Hopkins acted reasonably: no admissible evidence tying Montero/Nunez to crime; presenting them risked harmful collateral evidence | Court: No deficient/prejudicial performance—petitioner produced no affirmative evidence connecting third parties; Strickland not met |
| Sufficiency of notice in pro se application for appellate counsel/fee waiver | Pro se application referenced third-party identifications and witnesses who could not ID petitioner | Respondent maintained claim was not properly presented for certification | Court: Liberal construction of pro se filings; application sufficiently put court on notice of the third-party claim |
| Third-party culpability standard — sufficiency of mere suspicion or witness statements | Petitioner relied on purported prior identifications and witness statements to raise third-party defense | Respondent: Bare suspicion and unproduced statements insufficient; need direct evidence connecting third party to the crime | Court: Affirmed that defendant must present direct/affirmative evidence linking third party; petitioner failed to meet that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (establishes test for appellate review when habeas court denies certification to appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- McClain v. Commissioner of Correction, 188 Conn. App. 70 (third‑party culpability requires direct connection, not mere suspicion)
- Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 201 Conn. App. 1 (discusses prejudice prong and reasonable probability standard)
- Whistnant v. Commissioner of Correction, 199 Conn. App. 406 (standards governing habeas court denial of certification)
- State v. Santana, 313 Conn. 461 (direct appeal affirming petitioner’s convictions)