Background - Petitioner Rocco Yashenko was arrested for first‑degree burglary and related charges after being found in an attic with items staged for theft; he also faced a motor‑vehicle charge (operating while suspended). - On May 3, 2013 the prosecutor offered a substitute information (burglary in the third degree) with a 5/2/3 sentence (five years, execution suspended after two, three years probation); defense counsel Pear relayed the offer to Yashenko. - The court found Yashenko did not tell Pear to accept the May 3 offer; instead he asked for a continuance to seek a better deal and to await his co‑defendant’s disposition. - The May 3 offer was withdrawn before the May 30 appearance because the prosecution moved cases to a specialized burglary docket; Pear unsuccessfully protested but had no acceptance to communicate. - After counsel turnover, a later plea was negotiated: on September 4 (placed on the record) the state offered five years plus five years special parole for guilty plea to first‑degree burglary; Yashenko accepted on October 17, 2013, after a proper canvass where he stated his plea was voluntary. - Yashenko filed habeas claims alleging (1) ineffective assistance because Pear failed to communicate acceptance/preserve the May 3 offer, and (2) involuntariness of the October 17 plea because of that failure; the trial court denied relief. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---| | Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to communicate petitioner’s alleged acceptance of the May 3 5/2/3 plea offer | Yashenko: he told Pear to accept the offer on May 3 and Pear failed to convey acceptance, causing loss of the offer | Commissioner: petitioner never instructed Pear to accept; Pear did convey the offer and petitioner sought a continuance; no deficient performance | Court held petitioner did not prove he instructed acceptance; Pear’s account credible; no deficient performance | | Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve/put the May 3 offer on the record or secure a promise to keep it open | Yashenko: Pear should have preserved the offer on the record or obtained a commitment so it would not be withdrawn | Commissioner: Pear reasonably believed the offer would remain; putting offer on record or demanding hold would have undermined petitioner’s negotiating position; withdrawal was due to unforeseen docket change | Court held it was not unreasonable for Pear not to put offer on the record or extract a promise; no deficient performance | | Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise petitioner of the possible consequences of not accepting the May 3 offer | Yashenko: Pear should have warned that the offer might be withdrawn and explained consequences | Commissioner: Pear could not have anticipated the unique docket reorganization; no obligation to predict unforeseeable withdrawal | Court held Pear’s failure to warn about an unforeseeable contingency was not deficient | | Whether the October 17, 2013 guilty plea was involuntary due to prior counsel’s alleged failures | Yashenko: the later plea was coerced/tainted because Pear’s conduct caused loss of a better offer | Commissioner: the October 17 plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after canvass; petitioner preferred to avoid trial | Court held the plea was knowing and voluntary; claim fails because it depends on unsuccessful ineffective assistance claim | ### Key Cases Cited Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes test for ineffective assistance of counsel) Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (counsel must communicate formal plea offers; lapse of offer can constitute ineffective assistance) Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (plea negotiation stage is a critical stage for Sixth Amendment purposes) Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (effective assistance required during plea-related advice) Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198 (any additional jail time is constitutionally significant for prejudice analysis) Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342 (Connecticut standard for prejudice when a plea offer lapses)