Toccaline v. Commissioner of Correction
172 A.3d 821
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Lennard Toccaline was convicted in 1999 of sexual assault and related counts; his written statement to police admitted sexual contact and was central to the prosecutions case.
- Toccaline pursued three successive habeas petitions alleging (inter alia) actual innocence, prosecutorial due‑process violations for presentation/non‑disclosure of allegedly false evidence, and ineffective assistance by multiple attorneys (trial, first‑habeas trial and appeal, second‑habeas counsel).
- First habeas (Judge Rittenband) granted relief on ineffective‑assistance claims but rejected actual‑innocence; this court reversed on the standard for ineffective assistance and ordered dismissal.
- Second habeas (Judge Schuman) dismissed actual‑innocence as res judicata and denied ineffective‑assistance claims; this court affirmed.
- Third habeas (operative third amended petition) reasserted actual innocence, due‑process claims about unknowing presentation of false testimony and nondisclosure, and ineffective assistance claims against various habeas and trial counsel; the habeas court granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss and denied certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether actual innocence claim may proceed | Toccaline: he is actually innocent and lacked full prior opportunity to litigate | Commissioner: claim is successive/res judicata; no new evidence | Dismissed as res judicata; no newly discovered evidence; certification denied |
| Due process from prosecutor’s unknowing presentation of false testimony | Toccaline: presentation of false testimony (unknowing) violated due process | Commissioner: Connecticut law requires prosecutorial knowledge (or at least no CT precedent recognizes unknowing‑use claim); claim fails on facts given other incriminating evidence | Dismissed; no CT precedent, USSC undecided; fails even under Second Circuit’s Ortega test because other significant evidence (inculpatory statement) remains |
| Ineffective assistance by first‑habeas appellate counsel (Seifert) | Toccaline: Seifert failed to move for articulation of first habeas court’s factual findings, prejudicing appeal | Commissioner: claim is successive and/or without merit; articulation motion unnecessary or not shown to be lacking | Court agreed dismissal as successive was erroneous but denied certification on alternative ground: claim meritless because petitioner did not identify missing findings or show prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance by second‑habeas counsel (Pattis Firm) | Toccaline: Pattis failed to adequately plead/argue counts 1–6 at second habeas | Commissioner: counts were successive, precluded, or meritless; no prejudice could be shown given record | Dismissed; each underlying count was either barred, previously litigated and decided against petitioner, or without merit; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Toccaline, 258 Conn. 542 (Conn. 2001) (direct appeal affirming conviction and noting petitioner’s inculpatory written statement)
- Toccaline v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 792 (Conn. App. 2003) (appellate reversal of first habeas relief based on incorrect standard for ineffective assistance)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (two‑pronged test for appellate review after denial of certification to appeal)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance of counsel standard)
- Horn v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 767 (Conn. 2016) (discussion of due‑process claims when government uses false testimony)
- Ortega v. Duncan, 333 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2003) (Second Circuit rule that unknowing use of false testimony can violate due process if testimony was material and outcome likely affected)