Francis v. Comm'r of Corr., 33427.
Decision Date | 14 May 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 33427.,33427. |
Citation | 142 Conn.App. 530,66 A.3d 501 |
Parties | Ernest FRANCIS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Stone, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Jo Anne Sulik, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
DiPENTIMA, C.J., and BEACH and PELLEGRINO, Js.
The petitioner, Ernest Francis, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The petitioner's conviction was the subject of a direct appeal. See State v. Francis, 228 Conn. 118, 119, 635 A.2d 762 (1993). In affirming the conviction, our Supreme Court set forth the following facts:
“While the [petitioner] and victim exchanged words, the four witnesses observed, from different vantage points, that the [petitioner] held his right hand behind his back. From where they were located, both Green and Brown observed that the [petitioner]'s hand, which was behind his back, was on the handle of a knife. Upon seeing the knife, Brown commented to Green, ‘He wouldn't dare do that.’
After a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a (a) and sentenced to fifty years imprisonment. Id., at 119, 635 A.2d 762. In March, 1995, the petitioner, representing himself but with appointed standby counsel, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging, inter alia, that his trial counsel, attorney Kenneth Simon, provided ineffective assistance by failing to present a defense of extreme emotional disturbance.1 After a habeas trial at which the petitioner and Simon testified, the court denied the petition for habeas corpus and the petitioner's subsequent petition for certification to appeal. See Francis v. Warden, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford–New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV–95–0550706 (February 18, 1998), appeal dismissed, 63 Conn.App. 282, 775 A.2d 1004, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 933, 776 A.2d 1150 (2001).
In his present habeas corpus petition the petitioner alleges, inter alia, that Simon provided ineffective assistance because he (1) failed to investigate and to present a defense of extreme emotional disturbance and failed to request a jury charge on the defense,2 and (2) failed to move to disqualify the presiding judge at the petitioner's hearing in probable cause and the criminal trial. The habeas trial was held on October 15, 2009, and March 2, 2010; the court heard expert testimony from an attorney and a psychiatrist regarding the petitioner's claims. Following the trial, the court denied the petitioner's petition and subsequently granted his petition for certification to appeal. This appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be introduced as necessary.
We first set forth the standard of review and legal principles applicable to the petitioner's appeal. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 697, 706, 23 A.3d 682 (2011).
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Boyd v. Commissioner of Correction, 130 Conn.App. 291, 294–95, 21 A.3d 969, cert. denied, 302 Conn. 926, 28 A.3d 337 (2011). Our Supreme Court has stated that “the performance inquiry must be whether counsel's assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances,” and that “[j]udicial scrutiny of counsel's performance must be highly deferential.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ham v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 301 Conn. at 706, 23 A.3d 682. “[T]here is a strong presumption that the trial strategy employed by a criminal defendant's counsel is reasonable and is a result of the exercise of professional judgment....” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Servello v. Commissioner of Correction, 95 Conn.App. 753, 761, 899 A.2d 636, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 904, 907 A.2d 91(2006).
“To satisfy the prejudice prong, a claimant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Boyd v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 130 Conn.App. at 295, 21 A.3d 969. A petitioner's claim will (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. “A court can find against a petitioner ... on either the performance prong or the prejudice prong, whichever is easier.” Ham v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 301 Conn. at 704, 23 A.3d 682.
The petitioner first asserts that Simon provided ineffective assistance because he failed to investigate a defense of extreme emotional disturbance and failed to present or to request a jury instruction on this defense during the petitioner's criminal trial. We are not persuaded by either contention.
The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. As our Supreme Court recounted on direct appeal:
State v. Francis, supra, 228 Conn. at 121–22, 635 A.2d 762. Our Supreme Court referred to the petitioner's theory of the case as “[resting] on the assertion of an ‘ice pop defense’: blinded by the juice of the victim's ice pop, [the petitioner] ... swung his knife randomly, and did not intend to stab the victim.” Id., at 129, 635 A.2d 762.
At the first habeas trial, Simon testified that the petitioner had given him “different versions of what had happened ... right up until the time that [the petitioner] testified” at his criminal trial, which “handcuffed [Simon's] decision-making process.” 3 Specifically, the petitioner...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lapointe v. Comm'r of Corr.
...court's decision not to credit petitioner's new expert testimony about disease transmission rates); Francis v. Commissioner of Correction, 142 Conn. App. 530, 540 n.5, 66 A.3d 501 (upholding denial of habeas petition and deferring, in context of Strickland prejudice determination based on n......
-
Lapointe v. Comm'r of Corr.
...court's decision not to credit petitioner's new expert testimony about disease transmission rates); Francis v. Commissioner of Correction, 142 Conn.App. 530, 540 n. 5, 66 A.3d 501 (upholding denial of habeas petition and deferring, in context of Strickland prejudice determination based on n......
-
State v. Joseph
...242 Conn. 605, 625, 700 A.2d 633 (1997) ; State v. Small, 242 Conn. 93, 102, 700 A.2d 617 (1997) ; Francis v. Commissioner of Correction, 142 Conn.App. 530, 541 n. 6, 66 A.3d 501, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 921, 77 A.3d 141 (2013) ; State v. Cole, 50 Conn.App. 312, 321, 718 A.2d 457 (1998), af......
-
State v. Joseph
...Wilson, 242 Conn. 605, 625, 700 A.2d 633 (1997); State v. Small, 242 Conn. 93, 102, 700 A.2d 617 (1997); Francis v. Commissioner of Correction, 142 Conn. App. 530, 541 n.6, 66 A.3d 501, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 921, 77 A.3d 141 (2013); State v. Cole, 50 Conn. App. 312, 321, 718 A.2d 457 (199......