Francis v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 39445
Decision Date | 22 February 2018 |
Docket Number | AC 39445 |
Citation | 190 A.3d 985,182 Conn.App. 647 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Kermit FRANCIS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
Donald F. Meehan and Walter C. Bansley IV, New Haven, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner).
Nancy L. Chupak, senior assistant state's attorney, Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Jo Anne Sulik, Rocky Hill, supervisory assistant state's attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).
DiPentima, C.J., and Lavine and Pellegrino, Js.
The petitioner, Kermit Francis, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court granted his petition for certification to appeal to this court; he claims on appeal that he was prejudiced as a result of the ineffective assistance of his erstwhile habeas counsel, Michael Day. Specifically, the petitioner argues that, at his habeas trial, Day failed (1) to question a witness properly and (2) to present evidence of that witness' availability to testify at the original criminal trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The following facts, as summarized by our Supreme Court on the petitioner's direct appeal, are relevant. "On December 20, 1993, the [petitioner], along with Casey Wilcox, Andre Shirley and Corey Rosemond, were selling crack cocaine in the area of [Wilcox'] residence at 88 Atwood Street in Hartford. The victim, Moses Barber, Jr., a regular customer, purchased drugs from the [petitioner]. After making his purchase, he walked away. The victim later returned to [Wilcox'] porch and engaged in an argument with the [petitioner] concerning the drug sale. The victim and the [petitioner] left the porch and the [petitioner] proceeded up a dark driveway between two buildings directly across the street from [Wilcox'] residence. The victim remained near the street. As they continued to argue, the [petitioner] approached the victim and shot him. The victim died later that night as a result of a gunshot wound
to his abdomen.
"On December 21, 1993, Wilcox asked the [petitioner] for his guns for the purpose of threatening an individual who had accused Wilcox of shooting the victim. The [petitioner] went into the basement of a house on Atwood Street, and emerged with a handgun and rifle, which he gave to Wilcox. Wilcox, in turn, gave the weapons to Rosemond and instructed Rosemond to put the weapons in the trunk of a vehicle parked behind [Wilcox'] residence. The next morning, Hartford police officers, armed with a search warrant, seized the weapons from the trunk of the vehicle and, thereafter, learned that the [petitioner] did not have a permit to carry a pistol or revolver. Moreover, the police officers found that the serial number on the pistol had been ground off.
(Footnotes omitted.) State v. Francis , 246 Conn. 339, 342–43, 717 A.2d 696 (1998).
Following a trial, a jury found the petitioner guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 53a–54a (a), carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 29–35 and altering or removing an identification mark on a pistol in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 29–36. See State v. Francis , supra, 246 Conn. at 341–42, 717 A.2d 696. The trial court, Barry, J. , sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of sixty years imprisonment.1
The petitioner, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus dated January 1, 2001, alleging that his criminal trial counsel, William B. Collins, had rendered ineffective assistance. Eventually, the petitioner was assigned counsel, Frank Cannatelli, who withdrew that first petition with prejudice. That withdrawal prompted a second habeas action, this time alleging, among other things, that Cannatelli was ineffective for withdrawing the original petition. After a trial (first habeas trial), the habeas court, Schuman, J. , partially granted the second petition and restored the original petition under a new docket number.
In his restored petition, the petitioner, represented by Day, alleged that Collins had rendered ineffective assistance. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that Collins failed to call Fredrica Knight, a potentially exculpatory witness, to testify in the original criminal trial. After a trial (second habeas trial), the habeas court, Bright, J. , denied the petition in a memorandum of decision, which this court summarily affirmed. See Francis v. Commissioner of Correction , 150 Conn. App. 906, 98 A.3d 121 (2014).
Thereafter, in a new petition, which was amended on January 4, 2016, the petitioner set forth another claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, he alleged that Day had rendered ineffective assistance at the second habeas trial by failing (1) to question Knight properly and (2) to present evidence of Knight's availability to testify at the original criminal trial. That amended petition is the operative petition in this matter. On June 30, 2016, after a trial (third habeas trial), the habeas court, Sferrazza, J. , issued a memorandum of decision denying the operative petition. The habeas court then granted the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal to this court. This appeal ensued. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction , 169 Conn. App. 813, 822–23, 153 A.3d 8 (2016), cert. denied, 325 Conn. 904, 156 A.3d 536 (2017).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction , 169 Conn. App. 456, 463–64, 150 A.3d 729 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908, 152 A.3d 1246 (2017).
The petitioner's sole claim on appeal is that the habeas court improperly determined that he failed to prove that Day had provided ineffective assistance. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leon v. Comm'r of Corr.
...of counsel if he satisfies both the performance and the prejudice prongs of Strickland . See, e.g., Francis v. Commissioner of Correction , 182 Conn. App. 647, 652, 190 A.3d 985, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 903, 191 A.3d 1002 (2018) ; Williams v. Commissioner of Correction , 177 Conn. App. 321,......
-
Coccomo v. Comm'r of Corr.
...decide against a petitioner on either prong, whichever is easier." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Francis v. Commissioner of Correction , 182 Conn. App. 647, 651–52, 190 A.3d 985, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 903, 191 A.3d 1002 (2018)."The habeas court is afforded broad discretion in making......
- State v. Ortiz
-
Buie v. Comm'r of Corr.
...decide against a petitioner on either prong, whichever is easier." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Francis v. Commissioner of Correction , 182 Conn. App. 647, 651–52, 190 A.3d 985, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 903, 191 A.3d 1002 (2018).In the present case, the evidence established that the v......