Victor C. v. Commissioner of Correction, 179 Conn. App. 706

Petitioner (Victor C.) convicted of risk of injury to a child for sexual contact with his 13‑year‑old stepdaughter; sentenced to 20 years (15 execution suspended) and 10 years probation. Conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
Petitioner filed a pro se habeas petition alleging trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in three respects: (1) failed to call two potential fact witnesses (his then‑wife J and sister V); (2) improperly advised/dissuaded him from testifying; and (3) failed to consult or present a child‑sexual‑abuse expert.
At the criminal trial counsel called a single family witness (D, brother‑in‑law); medical and forensic evidence and witness testimony were in the record; petitioner did not testify at trial.
At the habeas trial trial counsel testified he investigated witnesses, declined to call J because of her serious drug problems and perceived unreliability, and used V’s husband (D) instead of V to avoid a relative testifying; he also advised the petitioner not to testify because of prior convictions and likely damaging cross‑examination.
Petitioner presented expert testimony at habeas that more targeted expert consultation could have improved cross‑examination and undermined the victim’s credibility; habeas court credited trial counsel’s strategy and found no prejudice under Strickland.
Habeas court denied the amended petition, granted certification to appeal; appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to call witnesses (J and V)	Trial counsel’s omission was unreasonable and deprived the defense of exculpatory testimony that would have undermined the victim’s account.	Counsel strategically excluded J due to drug addiction/unreliability and used D instead of V to avoid a relative on the stand; no evidence the omitted testimony would have helped.	Counsel’s decision was strategic, not deficient; petitioner failed to show what the witnesses would have testified to or prejudice.
Advice about testifying	Counsel improperly dissuaded or prevented petitioner from testifying; had he testified, jury likely would have acquitted.	Counsel advised against testifying based on petitioner’s prior convictions and risk on cross‑examination but left ultimate choice to petitioner; petitioner did not insist.	Court found counsel’s advice reasonable strategy and petitioner not prejudiced; petitioner’s habeas testimony was not credible.
Failure to consult/present child‑abuse expert	An expert would have enabled targeted impeachment of medical/forensic testimony and likely changed the verdict.	Counsel had experience in such cases, thoroughly reviewed records and conducted effective cross‑examination; expert not shown to be necessary or outcome‑determinative.	No deficient performance or prejudice shown; cross‑examination already exposed inconsistencies and petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 (U.S. 1977) (defendant’s right to testify rests with defendant; counsel’s role in advising)
Adorno v. Commissioner of Correction, 66 Conn. App. 179 (Conn. App. 2001) (calling witnesses and presentation of testimony is a matter of trial strategy)
State v. Clark, 170 Conn. 273 (Conn. 1976) (cross‑examination strategy and risk of alienating the jury)
Eastwood v. Commissioner of Correction, 114 Conn. App. 471 (Conn. App. 2009) (failure to call an expert does not by itself establish ineffective assistance)