133 Conn. App. 96
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Christopher Williams was convicted in 1991 of murder, attempt to commit 1st-degree assault, and criminal possession of a pistol, receiving a total term of 50 years.
- On direct appeal, Williams challenged the substitution of an alternate juror after deliberations began, appealing under § 54-82h (c) as a constitutional issue.
- Our Supreme Court assumed, but did not decide, that mid-deliberation substitutions violated § 54-82h (c) in Williams (1994) and found the violation harmless under the circumstances.
- In Murray (2000), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that § 54-82h (c) forbids mid-deliberation substitutions and that such violations are not subject to harmless error analysis.
- Murray also held the rule could be applied retroactively in some contexts, but Williams remained final prior to Murray’s retroactivity analysis.
- In 2009, Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel for not raising appellate-counsel ineffectiveness in light of Murray.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance for not raising Murray retroactivity | Williams argues prior habeas counsel were ineffective for not asserting appellate-counsel ineffectiveness based on Murray. | Williams cannot show retroactive application of Murray to his direct appeal; the issue was decided in Murray and not applicable retroactively to final judgments. | No; Murray was not retroactive to Williams' direct appeal; prior counsel not ineffective. |
| Appellate-counsel performance on direct appeal | Appellate counsel raised the § 54-82h (c) issue, but Williams contends the analysis was inadequate given Murray. | Appellate counsel properly identified and presented a plausible issue; not deficient given the law at the time. | Appellate counsel's performance not deficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 231 Conn. 235 (1994) (assumed violation of § 54-82h (c); harmless error review later questioned by Murray)
- State v. Murray, 254 Conn. 472 (2000) (holds mid-deliberation substitution prohibited and not subject to harmless error analysis; overrules Williams to extent)
- Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 87 Conn.App. 560 (2005) (appellate counsel not required to raise every conceivable issue)
- Marone v. Waterbury, 244 Conn. 1 (1998) (retroactivity generally applies to pending cases; judgments final)
- Amodio v. Amodio, 56 Conn.App. 459 (1999) (retroactivity principles for decisional law)