Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn. App. 776

Police executed an arrest warrant at a Waterbury apartment and found the petitioner (Luis Williams) on a couch and his brother Josue on the floor; officers discovered a pistol and, during a brief protective sweep, narcotics on a kitchen counter and in a closet area.
The petitioner was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to sell, possession with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school, and criminal possession of a firearm; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
The petitioner filed a habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for not taking curative action after alleged prosecutorial improprieties in closing argument, and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to raise prosecutorial-impropriety claims on direct appeal.
Key contested prosecutorial remarks: (1) characterizing Sergeant Setzer as a "trusted person" because of prior service guarding Air Force One; (2) statements implying there was "no evidence" against Josue and suggesting the charges against Josue were dismissed for that reason.
The habeas court denied the petition and refused certification to appeal; the petitioner appealed that denial, arguing the habeas court abused its discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to seek curative action when prosecutor allegedly vouched for Setzer (Air Force One guard)	Williams: prosecutor impermissibly vouched for Setzer by implying special trustworthiness based on his Air Force One duties, requiring objection/curative measures	Commissioner: prosecutor summarized admissible testimony about Setzer and asked the jury to draw a reasonable inference about trustworthiness; not an expression of personal opinion or unsworn testimony	Held: Not improper. Statements were reasonable inferences from Setzer’s testimony; no deficient performance by counsel
Whether trial/appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge prosecutor’s statements that there was "no evidence" against Josue	Williams: statements asserted facts not in evidence (that no evidence pointed to Josue/dismissal meant no evidence), so counsel should have objected and appellate counsel should have raised it	Commissioner: statements were ambiguous but reasonably read as summarizing evidence and inviting permissible inferences about Josue’s credibility and the dismissal; not unsworn testimony	Held: Not improper. In context the remarks were permissible inference from conflicting evidence; neither trial nor appellate counsel was ineffective

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (standard for appellate review of habeas certification denials)
State v. Ciullo, 314 Conn. 28 (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from evidence; limits on unsworn testimony)
State v. Medrano, 308 Conn. 604 (statements as to facts not in evidence amount to improper unsworn testimony)
State v. Felix R., 319 Conn. 1 (ambiguity in prosecutorial remarks construed in favor of the state when multiple plausible interpretations exist)