Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction
2010 Conn. App. LEXIS 576
Conn. App. Ct.2010Background
- Daniel Santiago was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and assault in the first degree in 2000; the murder charge was acquitted.
- This Court previously reversed on prosecutorial misconduct and later affirmed, with remand on one issue, and the Supreme Court denied further review.
- In 2005 Santiago filed a pro se habeas petition, amended in 2008, alleging eleven ineffective-assistance claims for trial counsel and three for appellate counsel.
- A habeas trial was held in 2009 and the court denied relief; the court also denied Santiago's petition for certification to appeal.
- On appeal, Santiago contends trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting an intoxication defense and for failing to object to prosecutorial improprieties; the state contends trial strategy was reasonable and preserved objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the intoxication defense claim deficient performance? | Santiago | Commissioner | No abuse; strategy reasonable; not deficient |
| Did trial counsel fail to object to prosecutorial improprieties? | Santiago | Commissioner | No abuse; record preserved; no reversible error |
| Did the habeas court abuse its discretion in denying certification to appeal? | Santiago | Commissioner | No abuse; claims not debatable among reasonable jurists |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Santiago, 269 Conn. 726 (2004) (relevant to prosecutorial misconduct; remand specifics)
- Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correction, 67 Conn.App. 126 (2001) (strong presumption of reasonable trial strategy)
- Bewry v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 259 (2010) ( Strickland prejudice component; standard applied)
- State v. Santiago, 87 Conn. App. 754 (2005) (affirmed after prosecutorial misconduct ruling)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes performance and prejudice prongs)