172 Conn. App. 139
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Thompson was convicted after a 2009 jury trial of first‑degree robbery, conspiracy to commit first‑degree robbery, and first‑degree kidnapping arising from an August 10, 2004 home invasion; total effective sentence 45 years.
- Forensic evidence included urine DNA from an upstairs toilet, cell‑phone records, and Thompson’s inconsistent statements; DNA linked to the petitioner.
- At trial the court gave a Salamon instruction (on when confinement exceeds what is incidental to another crime), but Thompson’s counsel did not move for a directed verdict on kidnapping nor argue the Salamon theory to the jury.
- Thompson filed a habeas petition alleging (1) actual innocence, (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to move for a not‑guilty finding on kidnapping and failure to advance the Salamon argument), and (3) ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
- At the habeas trial the court received testimony including from two inmates whose post‑trial statements purportedly recanted earlier testimony; the court found the post‑trial recantation evidence cumulative and not persuasive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to move for a directed verdict on kidnapping | Trial counsel unreasonably failed to move for a finding of not guilty on kidnapping under Salamon, depriving Thompson of effective assistance | Counsel’s omission was strategic in context; and even if deficient, Thompson cannot show prejudice because the evidence supported kidnapping | Court: Counsel was deficient for failing to move to the judge, but Thompson failed Strickland prejudice prong — a judge reasonably would have denied the motion; no relief granted |
| Ineffective assistance — failing to argue Salamon to the jury | Counsel should have argued restraint was incidental to the robbery to raise reasonable doubt | Counsel reasonably declined to make an arguably inconsistent theory to the jury to preserve credibility and pursue mistaken‑identity defense | Court: Decision not to argue to the jury was reasonable strategy; not deficient |
| Actual innocence based on post‑trial jailhouse testimony (recantation) | New inmate testimony (Wright) claim that another inmate (Nelson) recanted — allegedly newly discovered evidence warranting relief | Testimony is cumulative, hearsay problems, and highly untrustworthy; original trial had DNA and other strong evidence | Court: Recantation evidence is cumulative and unpersuasive; actual innocence claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel | Appellate counsel allegedly failed to raise meritorious issues | Appellate issues were not meritorious; prior appeals were adjudicated | Court: Same reasoning as trial counsel claim — claim fails; no relief granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (defines when confinement/movement has independent criminal significance for kidnapping)
- Summerville v. Warden, 229 Conn. 397 (Conn. 1994) (discusses habeas versus new‑trial standards and burden on habeas petitioner)
- Miller v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 745 (Conn. 1997) (addresses standard for actual innocence claims in habeas proceedings)
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard)
- Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (discusses historical and constitutional role of habeas corpus)