Gould v. Barone
| Decision Date | 09 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-1237 (SVN) |
| Parties | JEFFREY P. GOULD, Petitioner, v. WARDEN K. BARONE and COMM. of CORR. ANGEL QUIROS, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING AND ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Petitioner Jeffrey Gould, who is now serving his term of special parole [1] filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction for sexual assault (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner raises four grounds for relief: (1) “Factual Innocence”; (2) “Prosecutorial Impropriety;” (3); “Ineffective Assistance of Counsel;” and (4) “Malicious Prosecution.” Id. at 9-17; see ECF No. 18 at 4.
Respondents moved to dismiss the Petition, arguing that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies on all grounds for relief. See ECF No. 30. To date, Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. He has however, filed a “motion to stay and abeyance of mixed petition” (ECF No. 37) and a motion to use ancillary jurisdiction to overrule his assertedly “unlawful ‘special parole'” (ECF No. 38).[2] The Court construes Petitioner's pending motions as his response to Respondents' motion to dismiss. Upon thorough review of the record, the Court GRANTS Respondents' motion to dismiss.
On November 7, 2012, a jury rendered a verdict finding Petitioner guilty of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1). State v. Gould, 155 Conn.App. 392, 394, 398 (2015), aff'd, 322 Conn. 519 (2016). On January 10, 2013, Petitioner was sentenced to a total effective sentence of twelve years' incarceration, to be followed by five years of special parole. See Gould v. Warden, No. CV134005276S, 2019 WL 624516, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 10, 2019).
On June 12, 2013, Petitioner filed an appeal of his conviction with the Connecticut Appellate Court, challenging the trial court's decision to disqualify a prospective juror. Gould, 155 Conn.App. at 393. The Appellate Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in excusing the juror based on a “significant language barrier, ” but affirmed the judgment of conviction because Petitioner had not been deprived of a fair trial before an impartial jury regardless of the error. Id. at 409.
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for certification for appeal “limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court's disqualification of [a juror] from the defendant's jury did not require reversal of the trial court's judgment?” State v. Gould, 316 Conn. 912 (2015). On August 16, 2016, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Connecticut Appellate Court. Gould, 322 Conn. at 537. Specifically, the Supreme Court held:
Petitioner also pursued post-conviction proceedings through state habeas actions. On January 30, 2013, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus asserting several grounds for habeas relief (CV13-4005276-S).[3] See Gould, 2019 WL 624516. Petitioner claimed that his trial counsel was deficient for: (1) failing to present a defense that the victim had sexually assaulted Petitioner; (2) failing to present evidence of Petitioner's knee problems and erectile dysfunction; (3) failing to challenge adequately the admission of Petitioner's statement to a police officer and failing to impeach the officer's testimony at trial; (4) failing to present Petitioner's own testimony in support of his defense; (5) failing to file a motion in limine to bar the use of the words “victim” and “rape kit;” (6) complimenting the prosecutor and his presentation of the state's case-in-chief; and (7) failing to present Petitioner's military record during sentencing. Id. at *4-*9. Petitioner also asserted claims of ineffective appellate counsel for his direct appeal challenging the disqualification of the prospective juror. Id. at *9-*10. Additionally, he claimed violation of his right to due process and a fair trial based on: (1) the prosecutor's presentation of false testimony from the victim; (2) misleading and incorrect information about Petitioner's military record; (3) improper arguments before the jury; and (4) the trial court's failure to adequately inquire into his decision whether to testify. Id. at *10. On January 10, 2019, the state habeas court issued its decision denying the petition on all grounds. Id. at *11. On January 23, 2019, the state habeas court denied Petitioner's Petition for Certification to Appeal. ECF No. 31-11 at 102.
On April 4, 2019, Petitioner commenced his appeal of the denial of his habeas petition to the Connecticut Appellate Court, presenting the following questions: (1) “Did the habeas court abuse its discretion in denying certification to appeal?” (2) “Did defense counsel's decision to present a consent defense rather th[a]n the agreed upon defense fall below an objective standard of reasonableness?” (3) “Was Petitioner prejudiced by defense counsel's deficient performance?” and (4) “Did defense counsel's withholding of information critical to a decision whether to testify render any waiver of the right to testify not knowing and voluntary?” ECF No. 31-11 at 4.
Petitioner's brief argued that his trial counsel's performance was deficient and prejudicial because counsel failed to present the defense that Petitioner was subjected to an assault by the victim without communicating to Petitioner that he would instead present the defense of consent (which was against Petitioner's express wishes). Id. at 28-36. Petitioner challenged his trial attorney's presentation of the consent defense, noting, among other things, that “he never offered the jury any reason whatsoever to explain why [the victim] would suddenly decide to have consensual sex with her stepfather[, ]” that his efforts to impeach the victim undercut his argument that the sex was consensual, that his impeachment of the victim about inconsistencies resulted in the jury having access to evidence that was otherwise inadmissible, and that he failed to question the victim about significant inconsistencies in her testimony. Id. at 35.
Petitioner asserted that his counsel's failure to offer Petitioner's version of the events resulted in the jury not hearing the “context in which it was believable that the young woman might devise a sexual assault to defeat Petitioner's and his wife's custody plans and to secure a place for herself and her children in her mother's home by ousting Petitioner.” Id. at 37. He also faulted his attorney for failing to challenge a statement of a police officer (which Petitioner claimed was partly fabricated) or to have it suppressed. Id. at 38. Finally, Petitioner argued that his attorney's failure to apprise him about the plan to present a consent defense “effectively usurped Petitioner's ability to make a voluntary and knowing decision whether to testify in his own behalf.” Id. at 39. On January 19, 2021, the Connecticut Appellate Court summarily dismissed Petitioner's appeal. See Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 202 Conn.App. 901 (2021) (per curiam).
On February 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court that presented the following two questions for review: (1) “Whether a per curiam dismissal by the appellate court was appropriate where Petitioner asserted the habeas court improperly mischaracterized the nature of his habeas claim, made factual findings not supported by the record, and then based its legal conclusion of effective representation on the mischaracterization and unsupported factual findings?”; and (2) “Whether the habeas court properly concluded that defense counsel's performance was constitutionally sufficient when the habeas court made factual findings not supported by the record, mischaracterized the Petitioner's ineffectiveness claim, and failed to measure counsel's performance against a correct statement of Petitioner's claim, instead measuring counsel's performance in relation to the mischaracterization of Petitioner's habeas claim?”. See Petition available at Case Detail for Gould v. Commissioner, SC 200333 at 1.[4] The petition argued, inter alia:
The habeas court assessed the adequacy of counsel's performance in relation to a claim Petitioner did not make, and in support of its legal conclusions relied on facts not supported by the record. As a result, the habeas court denied Petitioner a meaningful adjudication of his habeas claims. As set forth in Petitioner's briefs on appeal, Catalano, against Petitioner's express wishes, offered a defense based on A.M. consenting to sexual intercourse with her step-father just feet from her mother's bedroom door. Catalano's decision not to offer a defense based on A.M.'s motive to stage a sexual assault of herself by Petitioner was unreasonable because, in the absence of a reason to believe A.M. suddenly decided to have consensual sex with her step-father, the jury had no reason to disbelieve A.M.'s testimony that she was the victim of a sexual assault.
On March 2, 2021, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification of the appeal. Gould...
To continue reading
Request your trial