Gomez v. Comm'r of Corr.

• Decision Date: 29 June 2020
• Docket Number: SC 20089
• Citation: 336 Conn. 168,243 A.3d 1163
• Parties: Jamie R. GOMEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

336 Conn. 168

243 A.3d 1163

Jamie R. GOMEZ

v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

SC 20089

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued October 23, 2019

Officially released June 29, 2020^**

Andrew P. O'Shea, West Hartford, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, and Stephen M. Carney and Theresa Anne Ferryman, senior assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (respondent).

Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker and Vertefeuille, Js.^*

VERTEFEUILLE, J.

The dispositive question presented by this certified appeal is whether a criminal defendant's federal due process rights¹ are violated when the state knowingly fails to correct the material, false testimony of a prosecution witness when defense counsel had actual or constructive notice that the testimony is false. We conclude that, under the circumstances of the present case, the fact that defense counsel was aware of the falsity of the testimony of two cooperating witnesses was not sufficient to protect the rights of the petitioner, Jamie Gomez, to due process of the law. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of the habeas court denying the petitioner's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

I

The facts and procedural history of the case are set forth in full in the decision of the Appellate Court that is under review; Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction , 178 Conn. App. 519, 522–24, 176 A.3d 559 (2017) ; and in the decision of this court resolving the direct appeals of the petitioner and his codefendants, Anthony Booth and Daniel Brown (codefendants). State v. Booth , 250 Conn. 611, 614–16, 737 A.2d 404 (1999), cert. denied sub nom. Brown v. Connecticut , 529 U.S. 1060, 120 S. Ct. 1568, 146 L. Ed. 2d 471 (2000). The following summary provides the necessary context for the present appeal.

"In connection with the murder of Darrell Wattley, the state charged the petitioner and his codefendants ... each with [inter alia] one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a ... and one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-54a." Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 178 Conn. App. at 522, 176 A.3d 559. During the consolidated trial in 1997, John F. Cocheo, who passed away before the present action was filed, represented the petitioner, Jeremiah Donovan represented Brown, and Bruce Sturman represented Booth. Id., at 524, 176 A.3d 559. The state's key witnesses at trial were two other alleged coconspirators, Angeline Valentin and James "Tiny" Smith (witnesses). Id., at 523, 529–31, 176 A.3d 559.

Valentin testified to the following at trial. The codefendants were members of the 20-Love street gang and resided in the same New London apartment complex as did Valentin. On the evening of the murder, Valentin notified the codefendants and Smith that Wattley, who had romantic feelings for her, was coming to visit her. She understood, on the basis of previous conversations, that the codefendants planned to assault Wattley when he visited their apartment complex in retaliation for a prior incident in which Wattley had assaulted Smith. A short time later, Valentin heard gunshots in the building, looked out her window, and saw the codefendants and Smith run quickly out of the building, enter a car owned by the petitioner's girlfriend, and drive off with the petitioner in the driver's seat. Approximately thirty minutes later, she went downstairs and saw Wattley lying on the floor with "[b]lood draining from his head." Finally, she testified that, later that evening, Booth "told [her] what [had] happened. And he told [her] that, if [she] would have known that they [were] going to kill [Wattley], [she] would have never helped ... by telling [the codefendants and Smith] that he was coming over."

Valentin further testified that Booth admitted "that they shot him."

In his trial testimony, Smith confirmed both that the codefendants were affiliated with 20-Love and that Wattley had assaulted him at a party the week before the murder. Although his account of events differed slightly from that of Valentin, he confirmed that a "girl" had alerted the codefendants that Wattley was coming to visit her and that the codefendants had indicated that they wanted Smith to fight Wattley when Wattley arrived.

Smith further testified as follows. While the men were waiting for Wattley to arrive, Booth, in reference to a bag that Brown was holding, asked, "did [you] wear gloves when [you] loaded it," to which Brown responded "yes." The four men then left the apartment, several of them having donned gloves, and with Booth wielding a butcher knife, but Smith remained under the impression that only a fistfight was planned. The group then split; Smith accompanied Booth to one side of the building, and Brown accompanied the petitioner to the other side. Smith saw Wattley arrive and enter the building on the side where Brown and the petitioner were waiting. Smith then heard gunshots and, after running through the building with Brown, came across Wattley lying on the ground, covered in blood but still moving his legs. Smith watched Booth stab Wattley several times, after which the two men fled, joining Brown and the petitioner at the petitioner's car. During the ensuing car ride, Brown said, "I robbed that nigger, too," and threw a knife out of the window. Booth then instructed the group to invent alibis, which they later did.²

The jury found the petitioner and his codefendants guilty of murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Id., at 524, 176 A.3d 559. The trial court, Parker, J. , "sentenced the petitioner to a term of imprisonment of fifty years on the murder count and a concurrent sentence of fifteen years on the conspiracy to commit murder count, for a total effective sentence of fifty years ...." Id. This court affirmed the petitioner's conviction. State v. Booth , supra, 250 Conn. at 617, 737 A.2d 404.

In 2000, the petitioner, represented by Robert McKay, filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court, Rittenband, J ., denied the petition.

In 2013, the petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his amended petition, which gives rise to the present appeal, he alleged, among other things, that his prior habeas counsel had provided ineffective assistance insofar as he failed to raise the claim that the state had violated his right to due process when the prosecutor failed to correct the allegedly false testimony of Valentin and Smith at trial. The habeas court, Oliver , J. , denied the petition. With respect to the petitioner's due process claim, the court found that "[t]he petitioner ... failed to demonstrate that the underlying trial testimony of Smith and Valentin was ‘false’ ... as opposed to, for example, [a reflection of] their uncertainty as to the likely posttrial sentencing scenario." The court also found that "[t]he nature and circumstances of [Smith's] and Valentin's ‘agreements’ were thoroughly explored and dissected on both direct and cross-examination. There is no reasonable probability that the jury was misled in this regard ...." Finally, the court found that "at least one other defense attorney in the consolidated trial was ... aware of the agreement" by which the prosecuting authority would bring the cooperation of Smith and Valentin to the attention of the sentencing judge posttrial and, therefore, concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that Cocheo was unaware of the existence of that agreement. For these reasons, the court concluded that there had been no due process violation and, therefore, that prior counsel had not performed deficiently in failing to raise the claim.

The habeas court subsequently granted the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal, and the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 178 Conn. App. at 522, 176 A.3d 559. The Appellate Court concluded that, in light of the clear and undisputed evidence of the agreements, the habeas court's finding that "the state had limited agreements to bring the cooperation of Valentin and Smith to the attention of the trial court posttrial ... was not clearly erroneous." Id., at 535, 176 A.3d 559. The Appellate Court also concluded, however, that there had been no violation of the petitioner's due process rights, as elucidated in Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1217 (1959), and Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104 (1972), because the agreements had been disclosed to defense counsel. Id., at 540, 176 A.3d 559. The Appellate Court read this court's decision in State v. Ouellette , 295 Conn. 173, 186–87, 989 A.2d 1048 (2010), to mean that Napue and Giglio are concerned only with the state's failure to correct false testimony regarding an undisclosed cooperation agreement. See Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, at 539–40, 176 A.3d 559 ; see also Hines v. Commissioner of Correction , 164 Conn. App. 712, 726–28, 138 A.3d 430 (2016). This certified appeal followed.³

II

On appeal, the petitioner contends that both Smith and Valentin provided material, false or misleading testimony and that the fact that defense counsel had actual or constructive notice thereof did not satisfy the duty of the prosecutor, under Napue and Giglio , to correct the witnesses’ false testimony. We agree.

A

The following legal principles frame our review of the petitioner's claim. "Whether a prosecutor knowingly presented false or misleading testimony [in violation of a defendant's due process rights] presents a mixed question of law and fact, with the habeas court's factual findings subject to review for clear error and the legal conclusions that the court drew from those facts subject to de novo review." Greene v....