Slater v. Commissioner of Correction, 158 Conn.App. 522

May 6, 1997: Victim raped; rape kit collected. Case later closed due to victim uncooperativeness. DNA evidence from kit later matched petitioner.
New § 54-193b (effective May 16, 2000) extended certain sexual-assault limitations to 20 years where victim reported within 5 years and perpetrator ID via DNA; prior § 54-193(b) provided a 5-year limitation for Class B felonies.
Arrest warrant for Slater issued October 23, 2003; arrested October 27, 2003 (≈6 years, 5 months after offense). Charged with first‑degree sexual assault (Class B) and first‑degree kidnapping (Class A).
Trial counsel moved to dismiss pretrial arguing ex post facto/statute-of-limitations and prearrest delay; motion denied. Counsel did not plead statute of limitations as an affirmative defense to the jury.
Petitioner convicted; direct appeals denied. Habeas petition alleged (relevant here) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to raise statute‑of‑limitations to the jury, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing adequately to investigate/raise a prearrest‑delay due‑process claim. Habeas court denied those claims for lack of prejudice; this appeal follows.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Slater)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present statute‑of‑limitations as an affirmative defense to the jury	Trial counsel raised the statute‑of‑limitations/ex post facto argument pretrial but did not plead it to the jury; that omission waived the issue and prejudiced Slater	Trial court already ruled the new 20‑year statute (§ 54‑193b) applied; the question was legal (for the court), so counsel’s failure to argue to the jury could not have changed the outcome	No ineffective assistance; petitioner failed Strickland prejudice prong — unlikely jury would have heard or acted on the defense given the trial court’s pretrial ruling
Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for inadequate investigation by not raising a prearrest‑delay due‑process claim on direct appeal	Appellate counsel did not sufficiently review files/transcripts or consult client; a prearrest‑delay claim (actual substantial prejudice + wholly unjustifiable delay) could have succeeded and led to dismissal	Appellate counsel credibly testified to standard review practice; petitioner produced no evidence showing further investigation would have uncovered a meritorious delay claim or that the claim would have succeeded	No ineffective assistance; petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability the claim would have prevailed on appeal (no proof of actual substantial prejudice or wholly unjustifiable delay)

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two‑prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Slater, 285 Conn. 162 (reciting facts, direct‑appeal affirmance)
State v. Coughlin, 61 Conn. App. 90 (distinguishable precedent about waiver of statute‑of‑limitations when not raised at trial)
State v. Morrill, 197 Conn. 507 (prearrest‑delay due‑process standard: actual substantial prejudice plus wholly unjustifiable delay)