Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 166 Conn. App. 331

Background

Washington was arrested April 19, 2011; held pretrial on New Haven charges (44 days) and, after a June 3, 2011 Milford arrest for violation of probation, was held there until March 8, 2012 (279 days).
Milford judge (Egan counsel) accepted a guilty plea to the violation of probation on Jan 30, 2012, and stayed sentencing to allow resolution of New Haven charges so concurrent service could preserve credit.
New Haven counsel (Marquette) entered appearance Jan 16, 2012; petitioner rejected an early New Haven global plea and later accepted a 14‑year Alford plea on April 30, 2012; sentencing occurred May 25, 2012.
The Department of Correction applied 44 days’ presentence confinement credit to the New Haven sentence and 279 days to the earlier‑imposed Milford sentence, resulting in Washington losing the larger 279‑day credit on the New Haven term.
Washington filed a habeas petition alleging Marquette failed to advise him about allocation of presentence confinement credit under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18‑98 and the Harris/Hunter/Cox trilogy, causing ineffective assistance of counsel.
The habeas court credited defense testimony that counsel had explained the credit risks and found Washington unconditionally rejected pleas in New Haven; it denied relief and certification to appeal.

Issues

Issue	Washington's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to explain how presentence confinement credit would be allocated, affecting plea decisions	Marquette failed to meaningfully explain § 18‑98 and Harris/Hunter/Cox consequences, so Washington would have pleaded differently	Counsel explained the time‑credit risk, coordinated with Milford counsel, and Washington nonetheless rejected earlier pleas	Court held counsel’s performance was not deficient; habeas court credited counsel and denied claim
Whether petitioner was prejudiced under Strickland/Hill in the plea context	Loss of 279 days on New Haven sentence caused prejudice and a reasonable probability of a different outcome if properly advised	No prejudice because petitioner’s own refusal to accept earlier New Haven plea caused loss of credit	Court held no prejudice attributable to counsel; petitioner’s choices caused the loss
Whether habeas court abused discretion denying certification to appeal	Certification should be granted because issues were debatable among jurists	Issues were credibility‑based and not debatable; record supports habeas findings	Court held denial of certification was not an abuse of discretion and dismissed appeal
Whether presentence credit allocation violated double‑counting rules under Harris/Hunter/Cox	Implicit argument that credits could have been allocated to New Haven sentence instead	Department properly applied credit to the first‑imposed concurrent sentence per trilogy	Court relied on trilogy: credit applied to first imposed concurrent sentence, so allocation was proper

Key Cases Cited

Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 271 Conn. 808 (Conn. 2004) (interpreting § 18‑98 credit allocation rules)
Cox v. Commissioner of Correction, 271 Conn. 844 (Conn. 2004) (related interpretation of presentence credit allocation)
Hunter v. Commissioner of Correction, 271 Conn. 856 (Conn. 2004) (holding against double counting of presentence credit)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (applying Strickland to plea negotiations)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (right to effective counsel during plea bargaining)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (prejudice in plea context and remedy principles)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (acceptance of guilty plea while maintaining innocence)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (Conn. 1994) (standard for habeas certification abuse‑of‑discretion review)
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1991) (standards quoted for certificate review)