Sinchak v. Commissioner of Correction
126 Conn. App. 670
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Petitioner Anthony Sinchak was convicted of one count of murder and two counts of kidnapping, sentenced to 96 years, and Direct Appeal affirmed.
- He filed two pro se habeas petitions in 2000 and 2001, later consolidated for trial, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and other failures.
- Habeas court denied the consolidated petitions in 2007, finding no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.
- Petitioner sought certification to appeal; the court denied certification, and he appealed to the appellate court.
- Petitioner also claimed a conflict of interest with his habeas counsel, seeking substitution, which the court found to be a dispute over trial tactics rather than a true conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion in certification denial | Sinchak argues the court abused its discretion denying certification to appeal. | Commissioner contends no abuse; claims issues were not debatable and lacked merit. | No abuse; issues not debatable and warrant no further review. |
| Conflict of interest inquiry adequacy | Sinchak asserts habeas court failed to adequately explore potential conflict with habeas counsel. | Commissioner contends the inquiry was sufficient; dispute framed as tactical disagreement, not a conflict. | Inquiry was adequate; no true conflict existed; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (two-pronged Simms test for cert denial review; abuse of discretion and merits)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (continued application of Simms standard)
- Abrams v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn.App. 414 (2010) (effective assistance standard for habeas claims)
- Synakorn v. Commissioner of Correction, 124 Conn.App. 768 (2010) (Strickland prejudice and performance review in habeas appeals)
- Coney v. Commissioner of Correction, 117 Conn.App. 860 (2009) (prejudice showing required for untimely action)
- Corona v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn.App. 347 (2010) (prejudice requirement in ineffective assistance claims)
- Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn.App. 412 (2010) (defining strategic decisions and reasonable assistance standard)