Davis v. Comm'r of Corr., 32883.
Decision Date | 05 February 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 32883.,32883. |
Citation | 59 A.3d 403,140 Conn.App. 597 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Travis DAVIS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Justine F. Miller, for the appellant (petitioner).
Laurie N. Feldman, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and Sean P. McGuinness, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
GRUENDEL, ALVORD and BEAR, Js.
The petitioner, Travis Davis, appeals following the habeas court's granting of his petition for certification to appeal from its judgment denying his amended second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel in his first habeas proceeding and improperly concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that the state suppressed evidence favorable to him at his criminal trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of the petitioner's claims. As recited by this court in State v. Davis, 51 Conn.App. 171, 721 A.2d 146 (1998), the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. Id., at 174–75, 721 A.2d 146. The petitioner was arrested and, following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–49 (a)(2) and 53a–59 (a)(1), attempt to commit assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–49 (a)(2) and 53a–167c (a)(1), commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53–202k and criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes § 53a–217. Id., at 172–73, 721 A.2d 146. He also was found guilty of being a persistent dangerous felony offender in violation of General Statutes § 53a–40 (a) and being a persistent serious felony offender in violation of § 53a–40 (b). Id., at 173, 721 A.2d 146. On direct appeal, this court reversed the conviction on the charges of being a persistent dangerous felony offender and committing a class A, B or C felony with a firearm. Id., at 174, 721 A.2d 146.
The petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel that was decided on February 24, 2000. 1 On March 1, 1999, the first day of the first habeas proceeding, the court granted the petitioner's request to proceed as a self-represented party and to have his habeas counsel, attorney Raymond Rigat, serve as standby counsel. The first habeas court denyied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It does not appear that the petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal.
On April 30, 2010, the petitioner filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (second habeas petition) alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of habeas counsel, a violation of his due process rights due to the alleged suppression of evidence and a violation of his due process rights due to the alleged destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence. On May 3, 2010, the state filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the counts alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of habeas counsel and the due process violation arising from the alleged destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence. During the second habeas trial, the court granted the state's motion to dismiss as to the count alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and the petitioner withdrew with prejudice the count alleging a violation of his due process rights arising from the alleged destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence. The petitioner's second habeas trial was held on May 3 and 4, 2010. On June 16, 2010, the second habeas court issued its memorandum of decision in which it denied the second habeas petition. On October 20, 2010, the second habeas court granted the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the petitioner claims that that second habeas court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel in the first habeas proceeding 2 and improperly concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove that the state suppressed evidence favorable to the petitioner in his underlying criminal trial.
The petitioner first claims that the second habeas court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of his habeas counsel in his first habeas proceeding. Specifically, the petitioner claims that he was deprived of the effective assistance of his habeas counsel because his habeas counsel failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation and was unprepared for trial. The petitioner asserts that because of his first habeas counsel's lack of preparation, he was compelled to proceed as a self-represented party. Additionally, he asserts that he would have prevailed at his first habeas proceeding if his counsel had located and presented certain evidence that he claims would have raised a reasonable doubt about his guilt. We disagree.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Boyd v. Commissioner of Correction, 130 Conn.App. 291, 294, 21 A.3d 969, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 926, 28 A.3d 337 (2011).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Trotter v. Commissioner of Correction, 139 Conn.App. 653, 658, 56 A.3d 975 (2012). “Constitutionally adequate assistance of counsel includes competent pretrial investigation.” Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547, 554, 440 A.2d 210 (1981).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gray
...of Correction , 141 Conn. App. 674, 678, 62 A.3d 1144, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 935, 66 A.3d 498 (2013) ; Davis v. Commissioner of Correction , 140 Conn. App. 597, 607–608, 59 A.3d 403, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 920, 62 A.3d 1133 (2013) ; State v. Morales , 39 Conn. App. 617, 623–24, 667 A.2d ......
-
Peeler v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 37382
...violation is a question of law, to which we grant plenary review." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Davis v. Commissioner of Correction , 140 Conn.App. 597, 606, 59 A.3d 403, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 920, 62 A.3d 1133 (2013). Additionally, "a trial court's determination as to materiality ......
-
Smith v. Comm'r of Corr.
...we consider whether those conclusions are legally and logically correct and supported by the factual record. Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, 140 Conn.App. 597, 602, 59 A.3d 403, cert. denied, 308 Conn. 920, 62 A.3d 1133 (2013); see also Smith v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn.App......
-
Holbrook v. Warden, State Prison
... ... 225, 112 A.3d 1 (2015)]." ... Davis v. Commissioner of Correction , 140 Conn.App ... 598, 603-04, 59 ... omitted.) Diaz v. Comm'r of Corr. , 125 Conn.App ... 57, 63-64, 6 A.3d 213 (2010), cert. denied, 299 ... ...