Cobb v. Commissioner of Correction, No. CV00-0003238 (CT 11/8/2004)

• Decision Date: 08 November 2004
• Docket Number: No. CV00-0003238,CV00-0003238
• Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut
• Parties: Sedreick H. Cobb, Inmate #242168 v. Commissioner of Correction<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>

Page 1

Unpublished Opinion

Sedreick H. Cobb, Inmate #242168 v. Commissioner of Correction¹

No. CV00-0003238

Superior Court of Connecticut

Judicial District of Tolland

Geographic Area 19 at Somers

November 8, 2004

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

FUGER, JUDGE.

The petitioner, Sedrick H. Cobb, inmate #242168, alleges in his petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus initially filed on October 17, 2000 and amended for the final time on April 8, 2003, that his convictions and resultant sentence to death were defective under both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Connecticut and that as a result he is entitled to have his convictions and sentence set aside. Notwithstanding, the focus of the trial of this habeas petition has been around the sentencing aspect of the capital case. Indeed, the petitioner made it clear through his testimony at the habeas trial that he was, in fact, the perpetrator of this crime. Consequently, this court will find at the outset that there is no reason to doubt the findings of guilty as to the crimes alleged.² Nevertheless, the petitioner is vigorously challenging the representation of his counsel in regard to the sentencing phase of the trial, so, what is at issue is whether the sentence of death pronounced upon the petitioner is constitutionally valid.

On December 16, 1989, a young woman, Ms. Julia Ash, was abducted from the Naugatuck Valley Mall in Waterbury, Connecticut. Her body was subsequently found in a secluded location on December 25, 1989. The petitioner was thereafter arrested and charged with her kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder on December 28, 1989. He was arraigned in the Judicial District of Waterbury where he was initially charged with two counts of capital felony in violation of CGS §53a-54b(5) & (7) and felony murder in violation of CGS §53a-54c.³ That case, captioned State v. Cobb, was assigned a docket number of CR4-175454. Having pled not guilty, the petitioner was convicted following a trial in front of a three-judge panel⁴ on the merits and ultimately sentenced to death by the same three-judge panel on August 12, 1991. He has resided on the state of Connecticut's Death Row in the custody of the respondent ever since.

This habeas petition came on trial before the Court commencing on October 14, 2003.⁵ During the next three months, the Court received testimony from eleven witnesses and received innumerable documents into evidence. Both parties prepared and filed pretrial briefs as well as post-trial briefs. Finally, the Court heard oral argument on this matter on July 29, 2004.⁶ The Court has thoroughly reviewed all of the testimony and evidence and makes the following specific findings of fact.⁷

Findings of Fact

The petitioner was the defendant in a criminal case brought in the Judicial District of Waterbury under docket number CR4-175454 and captioned, State v. Cobb.⁸ Attorney Gerard Smyth and Attorney Allan McWhirter represented the petitioner throughout the case. Both of these attorneys are admitted to the practice of law in Connecticut. Both were, and continue to be, employed by the Office of Public Defender for the state of Connecticut.⁹

In June 1989, the petitioner had been arrested and charged with an unrelated Sexual Assault in the 1st degree, Assault in the 3rd degree, and unlawful restraint. These alleged offenses occurred in the town of Naugatuck, Connecticut and were pending in the Judicial District of Waterbury.¹⁰ Attorney David LaBriola, a private practitioner, represented the petitioner in that case. The petitioner was able to post bond in that matter and remained at liberty while his case was pending.

On December 20, 1989, the petitioner was arrested in the Judicial District of Ansonia/Milford and charged with robbery, sexual assault and burglary in connection with an incident that had taken place in the town of Oxford, Connecticut a few days before.¹¹ The Office of Public Defender was appointed to represent the petitioner in connection with that case. The petitioner was unable to post bond in this case and has remained in the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections continuously since that day.

Prior to his arrest on the Oxford incident however, on December 15, 1989, the petitioner was in the parking lot of the Bradlees' shopping center in Waterbury, Connecticut. On the same day, Ms. Bonita C. parked her car in the lot and entered the shopping center. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner deflated one of her car tires with a valve stem remover. When she returned to her car, the petitioner approached her, pointed to her deflated tire, and offered to change it for her. A friend of Ms. C. fortuitously passed by, however, and instead offered to assist Ms. C., at which time the petitioner left the area without further incident

On December 16, 1989, at approximately noontime, the petitioner was once again in the Bradlees' shopping center parking lot. Ms. Susan R. had parked her car and entered the shopping center. As he had the night before, the petitioner deflated one of the car's tires with the valve stem remover. When Ms. R. returned to her car, the petitioner approached her, told her that her tire was flat, and offered to change it for her. She declined his offer, however, because she lived nearby and her father was able to come to her aid. When her father did so, he noticed that the valve cap was missing from the deflated tire.

On the evening of December 16, 1989, the victim in this case, Ms. Julia Ashe, set out on an unaccompanied Christmas shopping trip by driving her two-door car to the Naugatuck Valley Mall in Waterbury, where she bought some items from Lerner's department store (Lerner's) and from Record Town. She then drove 2.4 miles to the Bradlees' shopping center and parked her car in the parking lot.¹² The petitioner was already waiting in the parking lot consuming an alcoholic beverage.¹³ He also had in his possession the valve stem remover and a roll of fiberglass-reinforced tape that he had purchased from the Yankee Trader store earlier in the day. Ms. Ashe had the misfortune to be, as the petitioner himself called her in a statement he later gave to the police, the "first attractive woman who was alone" that the petitioner had seen that evening. It is this that caused the petitioner to select Ms. Ashe for victimization. After the victim had left her car and entered the shopping center, the petitioner deflated one of her car tires with the valve stem remover.¹⁴ When she returned to her car, the petitioner approached her and offered to change the tire. She, unlike the other young women, unfortunately accepted his offer. The petitioner removed the deflated tire¹⁵ and replaced it with a donut spare tire from the trunk of the victim's automobile. At the petitioner's trial, Mr. Richard Sprague testified that on the evening of December 16, 1989, he walked by and saw the petitioner engaged in changing the victim's tire.¹⁶ At some point during the process of changing the tire, the petitioner told the victim that his own car was disabled and requested that the victim give him a ride to a gas station.¹⁷ Perhaps out of gratitude to what appeared to be an act of kindness from a stranger, she consented and the victim and the petitioner then both entered her car with the victim in the driver's seat and the petitioner in the front passenger seat. Shortly after they left the parking lot, the petitioner revealed his true intentions, grabbing her by the arm and telling her he intended to rob her. The petitioner made her stop the car and directed her to go to the back seat of the two-door automobile. Before leaving this location, the petitioner went through the victim's pocketbook and shopping bags and took approximately $300, including two $50 bills.¹⁸ At this point the petitioner became concerned that the victim would call the police and report the robbery before he had enough time to get away. He thereafter moved over into the driver's seat and drove the victim, who at this point was scared but quiet, the approximately 0.8 of one mile until they reached a secluded wooded area off Harper's Ferry Road in Waterbury, near a dam that abutted a pond.

While there is significant dispute as to what transpired at the crime scene on the evening of December 16, 1989 and the following day,¹⁹ this habeas Court finds the following scenario to have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Upon arrival, the petitioner bound the victim's hands and feet with the reinforced tape in order to give him sufficient time to escape. In order to keep her from calling for help, he also applied a gag to the victim, forcing one of her gloves into her mouth and then taping it to her head. The petitioner was careful to ensure that her nose was not covered so that she would still be able to breathe. The petitioner became sexually aroused at this point. He climbed into the backseat with the victim, removed her clothing, gag, and bindings and then proceeded to rape her. During this attack the petitioner taunted the victim by saying to her, "[Y]ou like this. You've never had it like this before." The petitioner believed that the victim had been "turned on" by him. After he had finished, the petitioner and the victim got dressed, he reapplied her bindings, and he attempted to engage her in conversation. He asked Ms. Ashe if she would like to go and get something to eat and to go to a movie. He wanted to know if she would have been attracted to him had they met under other circumstances. During this attempted conversation, he once again became sexually aroused, removed her bindings for a second time and once again proceeded to rape the victim.²⁰ The petitioner and the victim dressed once again and he then re-applied the gag and re-taped her hands and feet. It appears that at some point after this second rape, Ms. Ashe made what proved to be a fatal mistake by kicking the petitioner in the back.²¹ This enraged the petitioner and he accused her...