Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 14 May 2013 |
Docket Number | SC 18688 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | ODILIO GONZALEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
The "officially released" date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the "officially released" date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the "officially released" date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh and Vertefeuille, Js.
Michael E. O'Hare, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (respondent).
Robert J. McKay, special public defender, for the appellee (petitioner).
The respondent, the commissioner of correction, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the habeas court, which had granted the second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Odilio Gonzalez. Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn. App. 705, 707, 1 A.3d 170 (2010). The Appellate Court concluded that the petitioner had a right to counsel at the arraignment stage, which included proceedings pertaining to the setting of bond and the calculation of presentence confinement credit, and that the petitioner's trial counsel had been ineffective in his failure to request an increase in bond on two prior charges so that the petitioner could be credited for presentence confinement on those charges. Id., 713, 717. We granted the respondent's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issues: Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 918, 919, 4 A.3d 1226 (2010).1 We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "The petitioner was arrested on April 21, 2006, docket number CR-06-0599898-S, and charged with threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62 (first arrest). He was released later that same day on a $500 nonsurety bond. On May 31, 2006, the petitioner was arrested again and charged with breach of the peace in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181 and criminal violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223, docket number CR-06-0600923-S (second arrest). The petitioner was arraigned the following day, and the court set bond in the amount of $35,000. He remained in custody until the court reduced his bond on June 16, 2006, to a promise to appear. On January 12, 2007, the petitioner was arrested for a third time, docket number CR-07-0607605-S, and charged with criminal violation of a protective order in violation of § 53a-223 and harassment in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-183. He was arraigned, with his counsel present, on January 16, 2007, at which time the court set bond in the amount of $65,000 on his January 12, 2007 arrest, and the petitioner remained in custody, unable to post bond (third arrest).
2
3 Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 122 Conn. App. 707-709.
The Appellate Court, in a divided opinion,4 concluded that Id., 713. In reaching its conclusion, the Appellate Court determined that Id., 716. The Appellate Court further concluded as follows: Id., 717. Additional facts and procedural history will be supplied as necessary.
On appeal to this court, the respondent first claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the habeas court's grant of the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the respondent asserts that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the petitioner had a sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel for a matter pertaining to presentence confinement because the calculation of presentence confinement credit is not a critical stage of the criminal proceedings. In response, the petitioner asserts that the Appellate Court properly affirmed the habeas court's grant of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he had a sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel at his arraignment where the presentence confinement issues arose. We agree with the petitioner.
We begin with the applicable standard of review and the law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112, 131, 595 A.2d 1356 (1991); see also Ham v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 697, 706, 23 A.3d 682 (2011) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial