Smith v. Commissioner of Correction
85 A.3d 1199
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Petitioner Lawrence Smith was convicted of murder, felony murder, conspiracy to murder, conspiracy to rob, and hindering prosecution based on testimony from codefendants and other evidence; body of victim was never recovered and disposal details were disputed.
- Smith filed a state habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial, pretrial, and appellate counsel, plus actual innocence and lack of advisement on sentence review.
- Habeas court denied counts 1–4, found Barker claims not raised or proven, and granted certification to appeal from the partial denial.
- On appeal, the court applied plenary, de novo review to legal conclusions and deferential review to habeas findings of fact, focusing on Strickland v. Washington standards.
- The court ultimately affirmed the habeas court’s judgments, ruling that trial, pretrial, and appellate counsel actions were reasonable and did not render Smith’s conviction unreliable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Conway ineffective for not raising Barker in the motion to dismiss? | Conway should have raised Barker. | Conway reasonably decided Barker would fail; tactical choice valid. | Not ineffective; strategic choice within reasonable professional assistance. |
| Was Ahern ineffective for not raising Barker before trial? | Ahern should have raised Barker after replacing Conway. | Ahern acted reasonably; Barker already addressed; focus on trial. | Not ineffective; reasonable trial strategy. |
| Was Inkster ineffective for not raising Barker on direct appeal? | Inkster should have pursued Barker on appeal. | Appellate counsel need not raise every issue; strategic selection. | Not ineffective; raised issues with best chance of success. |
| Did Ahern's failure to present muriatic acid evidence prejudice the outcome? | Acid evidence could support defense. | Acid evidence would not affect verdict; collateral issue. | Not prejudicial; evidence not central to conviction. |
| Was Ahern ineffective for advising Smith not to testify? | Testimony could have helped; not testifying was error. | Advice was sound; defendant knowingly chose not to testify. | Not ineffective; trial strategy reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (speedy trial factors balancing test)
- White v. Commissioner of Correction, 145 Conn. App. 834 (Conn. App. 2013) (Strickland standard applied to habeas claims in CT)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 131 Conn. App. 805 (Conn. App. 2011) (appellate counsel standard for ineffective assistance)
- Saucier v. Commissioner of Correction, 139 Conn. App. 644 (Conn. App. 2012) (habeas review of appellate counsel decisions)
- Martinez v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 307 (Conn. App. 2013) (limitations on proving deficient performance without expert testimony)
- Coward v. Commissioner of Correction, 143 Conn. App. 789 (Conn. App. 2013) (tactical decisions given deference under Strickland)