156 Conn.App. 71
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Petitioner Carrie Yerinides pleaded guilty in Norwalk to sale of narcotics as a person who is not drug-dependent (§ 21a-278(b)) on January 4, 2010, receiving eight years plus five years special parole to run concurrently with other sentences. A prior plea offer that would have resolved her Norwalk matters (≈ three years) had been withdrawn after her arrest on the new docket.
- At the time of the new arrest she faced multiple pending matters (seven files across Bridgeport and Norwalk) and had an extensive criminal history (31 prior convictions, nine drug-related).
- Habeas petition (filed June 24, 2010; amended July 17, 2012) alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to adequately investigate and present evidence of drug dependence (e.g., CADAC exam or records) that could have supported treatment or a more favorable plea.
- Habeas trial occurred December 10, 2012; the habeas court found counsel had explained the offense and mandatory minimums, that petitioner understood the consequences and benefits of the plea, and that she was experienced with the criminal justice system and had a prior § 21a-278(b) conviction.
- The habeas court concluded petitioner presented only speculation that drug-dependence evidence would have produced a better offer or persuaded the court, and that she failed Hill prejudice — she did not show a reasonable probability she would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial.
- The habeas court denied the petition and denied certification to appeal; this appeal challenged that denial and the ineffective-assistance ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal | Yerinides argued the court’s resolution was debatable and deserving of appellate review because counsel failed to investigate drug-dependence evidence which would have affected plea negotiations or sentence | Commissioner argued the habeas court reasonably found the claims not debatable and that petitioner failed to show prejudice under Hill; thus denial of certification was proper | Denied — court held the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in refusing certification because the underlying ineffective-assistance claim was not debatable among jurists of reason |
| Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain/present evidence of drug dependence and whether petitioner was prejudiced (would have gone to trial or obtained better disposition) | Yerinides argued counsel’s failure to obtain a substance-abuse exam/records prejudiced her plea decision and foreclosed a possible treatment disposition or better plea | Commissioner argued (and habeas court found) that petitioner was experienced, had prior similar convictions, understood mandatory minimums, faced multiple files with severe exposure, and offered only speculation that different evidence would have changed offers or sentencing; she did not show she would have insisted on trial | Denied — court applied Hill and found no reasonable probability petitioner would have rejected the plea and insisted on trial; no prejudice shown, so assistance was effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (modified prejudice standard for guilty-plea cases: reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, petitioner would have insisted on trial)
- Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 287 Conn. 792 (2008) (Connecticut discussion applying Hill and Strickland in plea context)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 585 (2008) (applying prejudice standard for plea-based ineffective-assistance claims)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 (2008) (ineffective assistance and prejudice analysis in plea context)
- Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139 (1995) (discusses additional elements some courts have required when evaluating plea-related prejudice)