Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction
Citation | 101 Conn.App. 133,921 A.2d 128 |
Decision Date | 08 May 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 26603.,26603. |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Shawn CROCKER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Joseph A. Jaumann, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
Toni M. Smith-Rosario, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and Linda N. Howe, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
SCHALLER, ROGERS and LAVINE, Js.
The petitioner, Shawn Crocker, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance regarding (1) his failure to object to the admission into evidence of the transcript testimony of a witness from the petitioner's first criminal trial and (2) adequately investigating his case prior to his second trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in our decision affirming the petitioner's conviction on direct appeal. State v. Crocker, 83 Conn.App. 615, 852 A.2d 762, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 910, 859 A.2d 571 (2004). Id., at 619, 852 A.2d 762. After a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217.
Following his unsuccessful appeal, the petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, Leo Ahern, who had represented the petitioner throughout his first criminal trial, which resulted in a mistrial, and then again in his second trial. The habeas court rejected the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel but later granted the petition for certification to appeal. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Floyd v. Commissioner of Correction, 99 Conn. App. 526, 529-30, 914 A.2d 1049 (2007).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn.App. 420, 425, 876 A.2d 1277, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 930, 883 A.2d 1246 (2005), cert. denied sub nom. Santiago v. Lantz, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1472, 164 L.Ed.2d 254 (2006).
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Porter v. Commissioner of Correction, 99 Conn.App. 77, 83, 912 A.2d 533, cert. granted on other grounds, 281 Conn. 922, 918 A.2d 272 (2007).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pierce v. Commissioner of Correction, 100 Conn.App. 1, 11-12, 916 A.2d 864 (2007).
The petitioner first claims that his trial counsel provided ineffective representation for failing to object to the admission into evidence of the testimony of Travis Jenkins from the petitioner's first trial and by subsequently objecting to the state's motion to open its case to allow Jenkins to testify. Specifically, the petitioner contends that Ahern's failure to object to the admission of the Jenkins transcript was constitutionally deficient and prejudiced him because the testimony in the transcript contained a prior inconsistent statement by Jenkins, which the petitioner argues was inadmissible under State v. Williams, 231 Conn. 235, 645 A.2d 999 (1994), overruled on other grounds by State v. Murray, 254 Conn. 472, 499, 757 A.2d 578 (2000) (en banc),1 because Jenkins did not testify at the second trial and was not subject to cross-examination. We disagree.
The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of the petitioner's claim. During the petitioner's second trial, the state presented evidence that it had been unable to procure the attendance of Jenkins, for whom the court previously had issued a capias. The court made a finding that the state had established, pursuant to § 8-6 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence and the common law, that Jenkins was unavailable to testify. The court then admitted into evidence Jenkins' testimony from the petitioner's first trial and permitted Ahern to preserve any objections he may have had as to the content of the testimony. After a recess in order to permit Ahern to review the transcript, the court asked him if he had any comments on the substance of the transcript, and he responded that he did not. After the state rested, and while the petitioner was presenting his case, the state informed the court that Jenkins was present. Ahern objected to the state's opening its case and calling Jenkins to testify, and the court sustained the objection. State v. Crocker, supra, 83 Conn.App. at 653, 852 A.2d 762.
At the habeas trial, Ahern testified that he was concerned that Jenkins might show up to testify and when he did, Ahern did not want Jenkins to testify. He believed that Jenkins had been somewhat cooperative when he testified at the first trial and did not want to risk Jenkins giving potentially more damaging live testimony. He also was skeptical about the state's failure to locate Jenkins and wondered whether the state had tried to get him to say things that perhaps he did not say at the first trial.
We conclude that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Crocker v. Comm'r of Correction, 30786.
...set forth by this court in our decision affirming the denial of his first petition for habeas relief. See Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction, 101 Conn.App. 133, 134-35, 921 A.2d 128, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 905, 927 A.2d 916 (2007). "Shortly before 7:30 p.m. on October 27, 1997, George D......
-
Martin v. Comm'r of Corr.
... 179 Conn.App. 647 180 A.3d 1003 Carlton MARTIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION AC 39202 Appellate Court of Connecticut. Argued October 23, 2017 Officially released ... See Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction , 126 Conn. App. 110, 121, 10 A.3d 1079 (concluding that ... ...
-
J.R. v. Commissioner of Correction
...have had a reasonable doubt respecting guilt." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction, 101 Conn.App. 133, 136-37, 921 A.2d 128, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 905, 927 A.2d 916 (2007). Having set forth the applicable legal principles, we now add......
-
Toles v. Commissioner of Correction
... ... Accordingly, a court need not determine the deficiency of counsel's performance if consideration of the prejudice prong will be dispositive of the ineffectiveness claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Crocker ... ...