Santos v. Commissioner of Correction
171 A.3d 1091
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In Feb. 2007 the victim was stabbed in a Meriden residence; petitioner Richard Santos was later tried and convicted of first‑degree assault, unlawful restraint, and carrying a dangerous weapon. He was sentenced to 15 years (12 to serve, 3 suspended).
- Codefendant E.P. pleaded guilty under Alford pleas to aiding and abetting assault; at sentencing the trial judge told E.P. the state would be agreeable to a hearing on a motion to modify his sentence if he testified. E.P. later testified for the state at Santos’s trial and initially denied expecting any benefit, but on cross‑examination admitted he anticipated a possible sentence reduction for truthful testimony.
- Santos’s guilty verdicts were affirmed on direct appeal (Santos I; Santos II). Santos then filed an amended habeas petition alleging (1) the prosecutor knowingly presented or failed to correct E.P.’s false/misleading testimony in violation of due process, and (2) trial counsel was ineffective for inadequately advising Santos about the risks of testifying.
- At the habeas trial, psychiatric records of E.P. (including a note that he said “If I testify against my codefendant, they’ll take [two] years off my sentence”) were introduced; the prosecutor testified she did not recall offering a deal and did not recognize those records.
- The habeas court denied relief and refused certification to appeal. Santos appealed the denial of certification; the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, holding any failure to correct E.P.’s testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and that trial counsel’s advice was not deficient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Santos) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did prosecutor knowingly present or fail to correct false/misleading testimony by E.P., violating due process? | E.P. falsely claimed he expected no consideration; psychiatric records show he expected ~2 years off; prosecutor knew or should have known and failed to correct. | Even if misleading, there was no explicit agreement; any error was harmless because ample other evidence supported conviction. | Denied certification; court treated any prosecutorial error as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| 2. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to adequately advise Santos about risks of testifying? | Grogins failed to properly warn or prepare Santos; his damaging testimony could have been avoided if properly advised. | Counsel and cocounsel credibly testified they explained pros/cons, conducted mock cross, and Santos elected to testify despite distrust. | Denied certification; habeas court found counsel’s performance not deficient and credited counsel over petitioner. |
| 3. Was destruction/unavailability of knives evidence a due process violation (procedural claim)? | Santos contends trial court failed to adopt procedures to preserve evidence for multiple codefendants. | Habeas court addressed the claim as destruction in custody and found knives immaterial; appellate review refused because claim on appeal differed from habeas claim. | Not reviewed on merits as presented; to the extent addressed, habeas court held knives not material and no due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (prosecutor must correct known false/misleading witness testimony)
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (conviction must be set aside where state allows false testimony to go uncorrected if it could've affected the verdict)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Adams v. Commissioner of Correction, 309 Conn. 359 (harmless‑beyond‑a‑reasonable‑doubt standard in habeas context)
- Santos v. State (Appellate opinion), 146 Conn. App. 537 (direct appeal decision referenced)
- State v. Santos (Supreme Court opinion), 318 Conn. 412 (Supreme Court affirmance referenced)