Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 14 May 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 18688.,18688. |
Citation | 68 A.3d 624,308 Conn. 463 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Odilio GONZALEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael E. O'Hare, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (respondent).
Robert J. McKay, special public defender, for the appellee (petitioner).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
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., at 713, 717, 1 A.3d 170. 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. at 707–709, 1 A.3d 170.
The Appellate Court, in a divided opinion,4 concluded that Id., at 713, 1 A.3d 170. In reaching its conclusion, the Appellate Court determined that Id., at 716, 1 A.3d 170. The Appellate Court further concluded as follows: Id., at 717, 1 A.3d 170. 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-
Thiersaint v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 19134
...the right to the effective assistance of counsel." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 463, 469-70, 68 A.3d 624, cert. denied sub nom. Dzurenda v. Gonzalez, U.S. , 134 S. Ct. 639, 187 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2013). A claim of ineff......
-
Cancel v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 40977
...of counsel at all critical stages of a criminal proceeding. See id., at 686, 104 S.Ct. 2052 ; see also Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction , 308 Conn. 463, 470, 68 A.3d 624 (2013). As previously discussed, "[u]nder the two-pronged Strickland test, a [petitioner] can only prevail on an in......
-
Lapointe v. Comm'r of Corr.
...review by this court unfettered by the clearly erroneous standard.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 463, 469–70, 68 A.3d 624, cert. denied sub nom. Dzurenda v. Gonzalez, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 639, 187 L.Ed.2d 445 (2013). In the presen......
-
State v. Taylor G.
...of liberty for any amount of time, including a single year, is not insignificant....” I agree. See Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 463, 482–83, 68 A.3d 624 (2013) (“there is nothing more critical than the denial of liberty, even if the liberty interest is one day in jail”)......
-
You Made Gideon a Promise, Eh?: Advocating for Mandated Publicly Appointed Counsel at Bail Hearings in the United States Through Domestic Comparisons With Canadian Practices and Legal Considerations
...Id.102. Id.; Coleman, 399 U.S. at 1.103. Hurrell-Harring v. State, 930 N.E.2d 217, 223 (N.Y. 2010); Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Correction, 68 A.3d 624, 63536 (Conn.), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 639 (2013).104. See Ditch v. Grace, 479 F.3d 249, 253 (3d Cir. 2007); State v. Fann, 571 A.2d 1023, 1030......