Varchetta v. Commissioner of Correction
80 A.3d 591
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Petitioner Varchetta pleaded guilty to two counts of first-degree sexual assault under an Alford plea, receiving 12 years incarceration and 13 years special parole; related kidnapping was nolled.
- Petitioner alleged his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary due to ineffective assistance of counsel in a second habeas petition filed May 16, 2005.
- Before the first habeas trial, counsel moved to add a Cronic claim; the court denied that motion and trial proceeded.
- The habeas court eventually held no deficient performance by trial or habeas counsel and found no prejudice, denying the petition and certifying an appeal.
- On review, this court affirmed the denial of habeas relief and later denied certification to appeal the underlying issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion in denying certification to appeal | Varchetta argues the court misapplied Lozada standards and/or weighed the merits improperly. | Varchetta's claims lack debatable merit and cannot show abuse of discretion. | No abuse; dismissal of appeal affirmed |
| Appropriate standard for assessing ineffective assistance and prejudice | Habeas court used the wrong Strickland prejudice standard. | Court applied proper or at least non-prejudicial standards; findings of no deficient performance control outcome. | Even if standard was wrong, lack of deficient performance forecloses relief |
| Preservation and review of constructive ineffective assistance claim | Habeas court erred by not reviewing constructive Cronic claim against trial counsel. | Claim not properly preserved/presented for review; Golding-like arguments not reached. | Not addressed on this appeal; review foreclosed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) ( Lozada standard for certifying habeas appeals)
- Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 433 (2007) ( Lozada criteria and de novo review framework in Connecticut)
- Kearney v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn. App. 223 (2009) ( dismissal if petitioner fails to prove either prong of Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ( two-prong test for ineffective assistance)
- Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 145 Conn. App. 16 (2013) ( clarifies prejudice and deficiency prongs)
- In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. 653 (2005) ( relitigation and preservation considerations in habeas appeals)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) ( Alford plea underpinning plea-based sentences)