Tilus v. Commissioner of Correction
167 A.3d 1136
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Tinesse Tilus was convicted after jury trial of first‑degree robbery for an incident on Dec. 28, 2011; conviction affirmed on direct appeal and sentence imposed.
- Before trial, attorney Eroll Skyers represented both Tilus and codefendant Jean Barjon during pretrial proceedings; Skyers continued representing Tilus at trial after a court canvass raised potential conflict concerns.
- Skyers had negotiated (but did not finalize) a plea for Barjon that contemplated Barjon later assisting Tilus’s defense; Barjon ultimately withdrew his plea and would not testify for Tilus.
- Tilus filed habeas claims alleging (1) denial of conflict‑free counsel from Skyers’s joint representation and invalid waiver, and (2) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for investigative and witness‑related failures.
- The habeas court found no actual conflict and that, although Skyers’s pretrial investigation was untimely (deficient), Tilus failed to show Strickland prejudice; the court denied the habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skyers’s prior joint representation with Barjon violated Tilus’s right to conflict‑free counsel | Skyers’s dual representation created an actual conflict and the trial court’s canvass did not secure a valid waiver | Any conflict was at most potential; court adequately canvassed risks and Tilus knowingly chose Skyers | No actual conflict; habeas court correctly found only a potential conflict and no prejudicial effect from it |
| Whether any conflict prejudiced plea negotiations or trial strategy | Skyers failed to pursue a plea for Tilus or use information to negotiate favorably because of divided loyalty | Tilus never sought a plea; he gave a consistent story that offered little value to the state; no evidence Skyers could have secured a better deal | No prejudice shown; petitioner failed to point to any specific instance where Skyers’s loyalty to Barjon impaired Tilus’s representation |
| Whether Skyers’s failure to conduct timely pretrial investigation constituted ineffective assistance | Delay in investigating prevented presentation of potentially exculpatory witnesses/evidence (e.g., Azcalt) | Investigation was late and untimely (court agreed), but missing evidence/witnesses would not likely change the verdict | Performance was deficient (investigation delayed) but Tilus failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome (no Strickland prejudice) |
| Whether failure to call or reliance on certain witnesses (Azcalt, Jean‑Philippe) undermined the verdict | Not calling Azcalt and calling Jean‑Philippe (whose record was damaging) prejudiced the defense | Azcalt’s account would not have undermined victim’s identification; Jean‑Philippe’s direct testimony supported Tilus’s theory despite damaging cross‑examination | No prejudice: Azcalt’s testimony would not have altered key ID testimony; Jean‑Philippe’s testimony aligned with Tilus’s theory and did not undermine outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑pronged test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1932) (right to counsel of one’s choice is constitutionally protected)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (plea may be entered while protesting innocence under certain conditions)
- State v. Crespo, 246 Conn. 665 (Conn. 1998) (Sixth Amendment right to conflict‑free counsel applied to state cases)
- Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn. App. 538 (Conn. App. 2011) (distinguishing actual conflict from potential conflict; prejudice presumption applies only to actual conflicts)