VanDeusen v. Commissioner of Correction
212 Conn. App. 427
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2022Background
- On Jan. 10, 2009 Knowles retrieved a handgun, rode with VanDeusen and another to J.L.’s home, and fired shots from a van; bullets struck the house and were recovered. VanDeusen had driven, called J.L. to lure her out, and later helped dispose of the gun.
- VanDeusen was charged with conspiracy, accessory to attempt to commit assault in the first degree, and risk of injury to a child; the state sought five-year sentence enhancements under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202k (firearm enhancement).
- A jury convicted VanDeusen on all counts and answered a written interrogatory that the defendant or another participant had used or displayed a firearm; the court imposed five-year § 53-202k enhancements.
- On direct appeal this court vacated other § 53-202k enhancements but left the enhancement on the accessory-to-attempted-assault count intact; VanDeusen later filed a habeas petition claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request jury instructions (1) specifying the elements of § 53-202k and (2) defining “firearm” per Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-3(19), and (3) failing to request an instruction excluding “assault weapon[s].”
- The habeas court denied relief, concluding the jury necessarily found all § 53-202k elements (the jury unanimously answered the firearm interrogatory “yes”) and any instructional omission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; VanDeusen appealed and the habeas court granted certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury instruction listing the elements of § 53-202k and defining “firearm” under § 53a-3(19) | VanDeusen: counsel’s omission deprived the jury of the element-finding function (Apprendi) and prejudiced her under Strickland | Respondent: the jury necessarily found firearm use (written interrogatory + uncontroverted evidence Knowles fired a handgun), so any omission was harmless | Court: affirmed habeas denial — omission harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reasonable probability of a different outcome under Strickland |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not requesting an instruction that § 53-202k excludes ‘‘assault weapon[s]’’ (so enhancement would not apply if weapon was an assault weapon) | VanDeusen (raised on appeal): failure prejudiced her because the weapon could have been an assault weapon and § 53-202k would not apply | Respondent: claim was never raised before the habeas court and is a distinct theory of prejudice; unpreserved | Court: declined to review — claim not preserved before the habeas court; appellate review would be ambuscade |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising the § 53-202k instruction issue on direct appeal | VanDeusen: appellate counsel failed to raise trial-counsel error | Respondent: any error was harmless, so no prejudice from appellate counsel’s omission | Court: habeas court correctly found no prejudice under Strickland; claim fails |
| Whether alleged instructional/representation errors violated due process | VanDeusen: errors deprived her of fair trial and sentencing process | Respondent: due process claim depends on success of ineffective-assistance claims | Held: denied — due process claim predicated on unsuccessful claims and thus failed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Montgomery, 254 Conn. 694 (Conn. 2000) (trial court’s failure to instruct on § 53-202k elements held harmless where jury necessarily found firearm use)
- State v. Beall, 61 Conn. App. 430 (Conn. App. 2001) (same harmless-error principle for § 53-202k when evidence uncontested that felony involved a firearm)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-pronged ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (facts increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- State v. Velasco, 253 Conn. 210 (Conn. 2000) (jury, not court, must decide whether a firearm was used for § 53-202k)
- Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2008) (application of Strickland in Connecticut habeas context)