Villafane v. Commissioner of Correction
190 Conn. App. 566
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2019Background
- Petitioner Angel Villafane pleaded guilty to first‑degree burglary and criminal violation of a protective order; sentenced to 8 years incarceration plus 7 years special parole. He later filed a pro se habeas petition claiming trial counsel (David Egan) was ineffective (failure to investigate, advise about burglary of one’s residence, and request competency exam).
- The habeas court referred Villafane to appointed counsel; he later moved to dismiss appointed counsel and elected self‑representation; the court granted his motion to proceed pro se.
- Shortly before trial Villafane asked the habeas court to appoint special counsel; the court denied that request because Villafane had chosen to proceed pro se.
- At the habeas trial Villafane (self‑represented) presented witnesses and exhibits; the respondent presented no evidence. The habeas court denied relief in a written memorandum, finding Villafane’s ineffective‑assistance claims unsuccessful.
- Villafane petitioned for certification to appeal but did not list the habeas court’s denial of his requests for habeas counsel as a ground for certification; the court denied certification but granted fee waiver and appointed appellate counsel. Villafane appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court abused discretion by denying motions to appoint habeas counsel | Villafane: court wrongly denied his written and oral requests for appointment of counsel during habeas proceedings | Respondent: Villafane failed to include this issue in his petition for certification to appeal, so it cannot be reviewed | Dismissed as unreviewable—issue was not raised in petition for certification; plain‑error argument rejected because the claim was preserved at trial and thus should have been included in the certification petition |
| Whether habeas court abused discretion by denying certification on ineffective‑assistance claim | Villafane: trial counsel was ineffective (inadequate investigation, no competency exam, incorrect advice about burglary) | Respondent: claim is inadequately briefed on appeal and therefore not properly before the court | Not reviewed—appellant’s briefing contained only conclusory assertions and inadequate analysis; claim dismissed for inadequate briefing |
| Whether plain‑error doctrine allows review of issues not listed in certification petition | Villafane: invokes plain error to reach counsel‑appointment claim | Respondent: allowing plain‑error review would undermine § 52‑470(g) limits; many cases disallow such circumvention | Court declined plain‑error review here because the counsel‑appointment claim was preserved and thus had to be raised in the certification petition; plain error is for unpreserved, extraordinary errors |
| Scope of appellate review from denial of certification to appeal | N/A (legal standard) | N/A | Court reiterated Simms/Logan standard: petitioner must show (1) abuse of discretion in denial of certification and (2) that underlying habeas judgment should be reversed on the merits; appellate review confined to issues presented to habeas court in certification petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Supreme Court 1994) (two‑part test for review when habeas court denies certification)
- Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 689 (Supreme Court 1998) (legislative purpose of § 52‑470 to limit habeas appeals)
- Logan v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 744 (App. Ct. 2010) (§ 52‑470(b) limits scope of review, not jurisdiction)
- Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn. App. 778 (App. Ct. 2018) (cannot claim abuse of discretion on issue not presented in certification petition)
- Tutson v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 203 (App. Ct. 2013) (appeal dismissed where issue not raised in certification petition)
- Foote v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn. App. 559 (App. Ct. 2014) (discussed plain error review of counsel‑appointment claim in denial‑of‑certification appeals)
- State v. Moore, 293 Conn. 781 (Supreme Court 2009) (explains plain‑error doctrine as narrow, extraordinary remedy)
- Artiaco v. Commissioner of Correction, 180 Conn. App. 243 (App. Ct. 2018) (issues inadequately briefed are not reviewed)