Friend v. Commissioner of Correction
Decision Date | 24 January 2018 |
Docket Number | CV164069960S |
Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Philip FRIEND v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The petitioner, Philip Friend, initiated this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The initial petition was filed on August 2 2016, which sets forth numerous claims. On April 6, 2017, the petitioner filed an amended petition which narrowed the number of claims originally alleged in the initial petition to the following claims. Claim one alleges a violation of the petitioner’s right to effective assistance of counsel because trial counsel failed to adequately respond to the state’s improper closing arguments, and failed to adequately consult with, investigate, prepare, and present the testimony of a forensic accountant. Claim two alleges that trial counsel was operating under an actual conflict of interest [2] and claim three alleges that the petitioner’s due process rights were violated by prosecutorial impropriety when the state’s attorney allegedly argued during closing arguments that the jury should make inferences he knew to be false, and that went to the heart of what the petitioner characterizes as the state’s " weak" case. The respondent denies the claims. Based upon the evidence adduced at trial, the court finds the issues in favor of the respondent and denies the petition.
The petitioner was originally charged in docket number CR-08-0087415-T in the New Haven Judicial District, with thirteen counts of larceny by embezzlement- in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122(a)(2) (counts one through four); in the second degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-123(a)(2) ( ); and in the third degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-124(a)(2) ( ). On May 24, the jury found the petitioner guilty on counts one three, four through six, eight through thirteen; and not guilty on count two as charged, but guilty of the lesser included offense of larceny in the third degree; and not guilty on count seven. The trial court, B. Fischer, J., imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years of incarceration, execution suspended after six, with five years of probation with conditions.
The petitioner filed a direct appeal wherein he claimed that: " (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of larceny on all counts; (2) he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor’s statements made during the state’s closing argument; and (3) he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial when the state ‘failed to bring him to trial until four and a half years after his arrest ...’ " State v. Friend, 159 Conn.App. 285, 289, 122 A.3d 740 (2015). The Appellate Court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction and the Supreme Court denied certification to appeal, 319 Conn. 954, 125 A.3d 533 (2015). The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s denial of the petition for certification which was denied.
Habeas Proceedings
The habeas petition was tried to the court over the course of five days, August 3rd, 10th, 17th, 21st and 22nd, 2017. The court ordered that post-trial briefs be filed by no later than September 21, 2017. The petitioner requested a two-day extension to September 25, 2017, which was granted by the court. The petitioner’s post-trial brief was received on September 25, 2017, and the respondent’s was received on September 26, 2017. On September 25, 2017, the petitioner requested oral argument on the assertions made by the petitioner and respondent in their post-trial briefs and proposed findings of fact. The court granted the petitioner’s request and heard oral argument on October 12, 2017.
At the habeas trial, the court took judicial notice of the criminal trial proceedings, including the criminal trial transcripts the bankruptcy file in the SBC bankruptcy case, the Appellate record, including the decision of the Appellate Court, the Supreme Court’s denial of petitioner’s petition for certification, and denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of petition for certification. The petitioner presented testimony of Attorney Norman...
To continue reading
Request your trial