137 Conn. App. 493
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Petitioner Randall Saunders seeks certification to appeal after habeas court denied amended writ of habeas corpus.
- Petitioner alleged prosecutorial impropriety, ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; argued denial of certification was error.
- Judgment on direct appeal referenced: Saunders killed victim with gun after bar dispute; two trials ensued, resulting in manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and a 27-year sentence.
- Habeas court treated prosecutorial impropriety as procedurally defaulted due to lack of direct-appeal rights; petitioner did not establish cause and prejudice.
- Petitioner challenged multiple claims of trial counsel’s and appellate counsel’s effectiveness; court evaluated credibility-bound factual findings and legal standards.
- Court held petitioner failed to show issues were debatable among jurists or that relief should be granted on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural default for prosecutorial impropriety | Saunders claims default was incorrect; reply showed cause and prejudice. | Respondent properly asserted default; petitioner failed to show cause and prejudice. | Default sustained; no direct review available |
| Ineffective assistance of trial counsel—sixth bullet evidence | Counsel failed to present a sixth bullet as evidence. | No credible evidence of a sixth bullet; failure not deficient performance. | Not deficient; no prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance—911 tapes | Counsel should have challenged tampering of 911 tapes. | No credible evidence of tampering; trial tactic, not incompetence. | Not ineffective; prejudice lacking |
| Consolidated charging under § 53a-55(a)(1) and (a)(3) | Long-form information improperly merged separate offenses. | Subsections describe alternative methods of a single offense; proper conjunctive charging. | Not deficient; proper charging |
| Jury instructions—'decide one of them' | Instruction misled jurors into deliberating until a finding on guilt. | Charge read as a whole properly directed deliberations; no prejudice shown. | Not prejudicial; instruction overall proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wohler, 231 Conn. 411 (Conn. 1994) (charging conjunctively multiple methods of a single offense allowed)
- State v. Tanzella, 226 Conn. 601 (Conn. 1993) (subsections different means of same crime; not separate offenses)
- State v. Heinemann, 282 Conn. 281 (Conn. 2007) (charge reviewed as a whole for jury guidance)
- State v. Garcia, 299 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2010) (credibility determinations properly deferred to trial court)
- Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 114 Conn. App. 778 (Conn. App. 2009) (cause and prejudice standard in procedural-default review)