Taylor v. Wallace
184 Conn. App. 43
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- David Taylor pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to murder in 2001 and remains incarcerated; he has filed multiple postconviction/habeas actions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Anthony Wallace was appointed to represent Taylor in a consolidated habeas action between February 16, 2011 and January 28, 2014.
- Taylor filed a one-count legal malpractice complaint (April 18, 2016) alleging deficient representation and that Wallace used Taylor’s name/case to commit fraud on the state.
- Wallace moved to dismiss, asserting statutory immunity and, at oral argument, that Taylor lacked standing to pursue an alleged fraud on the state; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.
- Taylor appealed, arguing the court erred in dismissing (immunity), in finding no standing for the fraud claim, and in denying reargument.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, holding Taylor’s malpractice claim was not ripe under Heck because his conviction has not been invalidated, and that Taylor lacked standing to assert the fraud claim which was derivative of injury to the state.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint should be dismissed because Wallace is entitled to statutory immunity under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165 | Taylor: some acts were egregious, reckless, and outside scope of employment so immunity shouldn’t apply | Wallace: immunity applies; alternatively case is not ripe because success would imply invalidity of conviction | Court did not decide immunity; dismissed for lack of ripeness under Heck because conviction not invalidated |
| Ripeness under Heck v. Humphrey—may malpractice claim proceed while conviction stands? | Taylor: seeks money damages only, not release; malpractice claim independent of conviction | Wallace: success would necessarily imply conviction invalidity; habeas proceedings pending; courts should avoid collateral attack | Held claim is not ripe; must first invalidate conviction before tort claim that would imply its invalidity |
| Standing to sue for alleged fraud on the state | Taylor: he was forced to be an unwitting/unwilling participant and suffered distinct injury; alternatively third-party beneficiary of counsel’s contract | Wallace: any fraud was against the state; Taylor’s injury is derivative | Held Taylor lacks classical aggrievement; his claim is derivative of injury to the state and he lacks standing |
| Denial of motion for reargument | Taylor: trial court abused discretion in denying reargument | Wallace: no abuse given dismissal on jurisdictional grounds | Held no abuse of discretion; reargument denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (damages claim that would imply invalidity of conviction is not cognizable unless conviction has been invalidated)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (describing Alford plea doctrine)
- Janulawicz v. Commissioner of Correction, 310 Conn. 265 (Conn. 2013) (ripeness and justiciability principles for collateral-attack-adjacent tort claims)
- Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. New London, 265 Conn. 423 (Conn. 2003) (standing and subject matter jurisdiction principles)
- Lee v. Harlow, Adams & Friedman, P.C., 116 Conn. App. 289 (Conn. App. 2009) (elements of attorney malpractice claim)