Godfrey-Hill v. Comm'r of Corr.
| Docket Number | AC 45841 |
| Decision Date | 12 September 2023 |
| Parties | ERROL GODFREY-HILL v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Argued May 11, 2023.
Procedural History
Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court, M. Murphy, J.; judgment denying the petition from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Matthew C. Eagen, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Rebecca R. Zeuschner and Nicholas L. Scarlett, certified legal interns, with whom were Ronald G. Wetter, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, John P. Doyle, state's attorney, and Stacey M. Miranda, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
OPINION
Following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Errol Godfrey-Hill, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and to call a certain witness to testify during the petitioner's criminal trial and (2) he was not prejudiced by counsel's alleged deficiencies.[1] We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history. On August 1, 2014, Troy Mitchell and Tyrese Jones were standing outside a convenience store near the intersection of Kensington Street and Chapel Street in New Haven when a gunman appeared and shot them. Mitchell was injured but survived the shooting, and Jones was killed. Later that month, on August 25,2014, the petitioner was arrested and charged with murder in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-54a, assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Supp. 2014) § 53a-217. The petitioner elected a jury trial with respect to the murder and assault charges, and a bench trial as to the criminal possession of a firearm charge.[2]Throughout the proceedings, the petitioner was represented by Attorney Glenn Conway.
The sole issue at the petitioner's criminal trial was the gunman's identity. The surviving victim, Mitchell, testified that he did not see the shooter. Although there was a surveillance video that placed the petitioner in the area twenty minutes before the shooting, there was no forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, placing the petitioner at the scene or implicating him as the perpetrator. As a result, the state's case was primarily based on the testimony of two eyewitnesses: Teddy Cornelius and Richard Hayes.
Cornelius and Hayes were friends at the time of the shooting. Cornelius testified that, on the night in question, he and Hayes were on their way to have drinks downtown when they encountered and began talking with friends on Kensington Street. Cornelius testified that, as he walked up Kensington Street, he saw a man he recognized as "Dino," whom he later identified as the petitioner, emerge from the end of a park off of Chapel Street. He explained that he had known the petitioner for many years and that they had fought when they were younger. Cornelius further testified that he saw the petitioner, with a silver-colored gun in his hand, pull a black ski mask over his face, run up to the victims, and fire four or five shots at them. Cornelius stated that, after the first shot, he closed his eyes and hid behind a building, and that, when he came out, one of the victims was lying on the ground.
Hayes similarly testified that the petitioner was the shooter. Although most of his testimony was consistent with that of Cornelius, there were a few discrepancies, namely, that Hayes testified that the petitioner's gun was black, not silver-colored; that the petitioner had grabbed Jones' arm before shooting him; and that there were "way more than five or six" shots fired. Unlike Cornelius, Hayes testified further that, after the petitioner fired the shots, he dropped the gun and that another man, "Uncle Ant," later identified as Antoine Paige, picked up the gun, wiped it off, and told Hayes to get back from Jones and let him die or else Paige would shoot Hayes. Hayes explained that Paige "put [the gun] in the front of his pants, and he put his shirt over it and he walked off," and that there was "no doubt in [his] mind" that it was the gun that the petitioner had used.
The state presented additional evidence, including a ski mask and Timberland boots consistent with those worn by the shooter that were recovered from the petitioner's bedroom, as well as a note that was found in the petitioner's sock by a correctional officer when the petitioner was incarcerated on the relevant charges. The note stated: As a result of this note, the police seized a small safe from the basement of the building where the petitioner's aunt lived, which contained a sock filled with bullets. Although the bullets were the same caliber as the bullet removed from one of the victims' bodies and the bullets located at the scene of the shooting, the bullets in the safe were "hollow points," whereas the ones recovered at the scene were "soft points." Other than this evidence, the state's case primarily relied on the testimony of Cornelius and Hayes.
Conway focused the petitioner's defense on discrediting Cornelius and Hayes. In his closing argument to the jury, Conway highlighted the fact that the state had not presented any suggested motive or scientific evidence in support of its case. He asserted: Conway argued that the stories to which Hayes and Cornelius testified were inconsistent with each other and with the evidence, and that their "evasive and forgetful" demeanors undermined their credibility. He also emphasized that Cornelius and Hayes were close friends at the time of the shooting, and he suggested reasons for why they would be motivated to lie. Specifically, Conway argued that Cornelius was motivated to lie because he and the petitioner had fought when they were younger. With respect to Hayes, Conway reminded the jury of the testimony of Monice Glasper, who was friends with both Hayes and the petitioner, that Hayes had told her that he was nervous about testifying because he had lied about seeing the petitioner's face that night. She testified that, when she asked Hayes why he had lied, he said that it was because Cornelius had told the police that Hayes had information, and the police had threatened Hayes with five years of incarceration if he did not cooperate. Conway pointed out that Hayes had to be subpoenaed to give a statement to the police. He argued, therefore, that Hayes had two reasons to inculpate the petitioner: his friendship with Cornelius and to stay out of jail. In closing, Conway argued to the jury that it should disregard the testimony of Cornelius and Hayes, and that, without such testimony, the evidence was insufficient to find the petitioner guilty.
Ultimately, on October 13, 2016, the jury found the petitioner guilty of murder and assault in the first degree, and that same day, the trial court, Blue, J., found the petitioner guilty of criminal possession of a firearm and found that he had violated his probation. Thereafter, the petitioner was sentenced to a total effective term of eighty years of incarceration.[3] In November, 2021, the petitioner filed the operative second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that Conway had provided ineffective assistance by, inter alia, failing to investigate and to call Anita Morales as a witness at the petitioner's criminal trial.[4] A trial was held before the habeas court, M. Murphy, J., on April 21, 2022, during which the petitioner was represented by Attorney Robert L. O'Brien. Conway, the petitioner, and Morales each testified at the habeas trial.
Conway's testimony at the habeas trial can be summarized as follows. Conway, an experienced criminal defense attorney, testified that, at the time of trial, the petitioner's case was one of six or seven murder cases that he was handling "almost back-to-back" at the time, and that he had tried more than sixty jury trials to verdict in his career. With respect to the petitioner's case, he testified that he would have discussed the theory of defense with the petitioner but could not recall the specifics of that discussion. He characterized the case as one focused on "eyewitness testimony," and he recalled that Cornelius was "kind of the primary witness for the state." He testified that Cornelius and the petitioner "had a history that went back to childhood," so "the idea was, you know, this is his chance to . . . get even." When asked about Morales, Conway testified that from what he could recall, she was a community activist who went by the nickname "Tweet." He explained that, in preparation for the habeas trial, he had reviewed a small portion of the statements that Morales had given to the police and that he would have had those statements prior to the petitioner's criminal trial. He testified that, from what he could remember, Morales was at the scene on the night in question and was in a relationship and had a child with a man named "Ant," who was also at the scene of the shooting on the night in...
To continue reading
Request your trial