Grady v. Quiros
| Decision Date | 23 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 3:22-cv-597 (MPS) |
| Parties | DONALD GRADY, Petitioner, v. ANGEL QUIROS, COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
RULING AND ORDER
Petitioner Donald Grady, an inmate incarcerated at MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution in Suffield, Connecticut, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254. He challenges his conviction, after a jury trial, for sexual assault and risk of injury to a child. Pet., ECF No. 1. In his amended petition, Petitioner requests habeas relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of his trial defense counsel and his actual innocence. Am. Pet., ECF No. 16.
Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Petitioner has submitted a “mixed petition” because he has not exhausted all of the grounds for relief asserted in his amended petition. Mot. to Dis., ECF No. 17. For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is granted.
Petitioner was the defendant in a criminal case, docket number CR09-0072182-T, in the judicial district of Ansonia/Milford at Milford after he was arrested on one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1), one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(2),[1]one count of sexual assault[2] in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a(a)(1)(A),[3]See Grady v. Warden, No. CV144006185S, 2019 WL 1093301, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 28, 2019). After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of all counts except the count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1). Id.
On February 14, 2012, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty years of incarceration, ten years of which were mandatory, followed by five years of parole with special conditions, and lifetime registration as a sexual offender. State v. DonaldH.G., 148 Conn.App. 398, 403 (2014).
Petitioner filed a direct appeal, arguing: (1) the trial court erred by allowing the state to introduce evidence of uncharged misconduct; (2) the trial court erred when it refused to conduct an in-camera review of the victim's psychological records; (3) the trial court's improper response to a question posed by the jury during its deliberations deprived him of a fair trial; and (4) the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct during closing and rebuttal argument. Id. at 400.
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. Id. at 427. It held that: (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting prior uncharged sexual misconduct evidence involving the victim (id. at 408-412); (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner's in-camera review request because Petitioner's request was vague and speculative and he had failed to show that the victim had a mental condition affecting her “ability to perceive, recall, or relate events or her testimonial capacity[;]” (id. at 413-414); (3) there was no reasonable probability the jury was misled by a trial court response to a jury inquiry, when viewed in combination with the court's main instructions to the jury (id. at 414-420); and (4) the prosecutor did not make any inappropriate remarks during closing and rebuttal argument and Petitioner had failed to provide legal authority for his claim of improper prosecutorial conduct (id. at 420-427).
On May 7, 2014, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification for discretionary review. State v. DonaldH.G., 311 Conn. 951 (2014).
On April 30, 2014, Petitioner filed his first of two applications for writs of habeas corpus in the Connecticut Superior Court for the Judicial District of Tolland. This first habeas action was assigned docket number TSR-CV14-4006185-S. See Grady, No. CV144006185S, 2019 WL 1093301, at *1.
In a third amended petition, Petitioner asserted that he received ineffective assistance from his counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment “on four delineated grounds.” Id. at *3; see Resp't ex. D, ECF No. 18-10. He asserted that his trial defense counsel was ineffective (1) by failing to elicit testimony from four witnesses (Linda and Gary Hoppes and Dennis and Janet Bludniki) with respect to his presence at a December 24, 2007 Christmas party; (2) by engaging in an attorney-client sexual relationship with Petitioner; (3) by referring to the complainant as a “victim” during trial and when he failed to object and correct the prosecutor's use of the term “victim;” and (4) by failing to “investigate, consult and present” Theresa Charette, who, the petitioner contends, would have testified that he was not present at a family ski trip at Okemo Mountain during which the victim claimed that the petitioner sexually assaulted her - part of the uncharged sexual misconduct presented at trial. See Grady, No. CV144006185S, 2019 WL 1093301, at *4-*7; see also Resp't ex. A-1, Trial Transcript (victim testimony), ECF No. 18-1 at pp. 75-78.
After a trial, the state habeas court denied Petitioner's amended petition on all four grounds. Grady, No. CV144006185S, 2019 WL 109330, at *5-*7. As to the first ground, the habeas trial court concluded (1) that Petitioner failed to show his trial defense counsel was “deficient for not asking the Hoppes and Bludnickis about the petitioner's absence from the December 24, 2007 family party[,]” which “would have jeopardized the defense to the charge arising from another date and incident when the petitioner had not acknowledged his presence and physical contact with [the victim,]” and (2) that Petitioner failed to show how he was prejudiced. Id. at *5.
The habeas trial court denied Petitioner's second ground because Petitioner's assertion of his sexual relationship with counsel was “completely not credible,” “outlandish and, ... only intended to humiliate former counsel.” Id. at *6.
As to the third ground, the habeas court recognized that the word “victim” had been used during the jury trial but concluded that “its usage was not so prevalent as to prejudice the petitioner.” Id. at *7.
With respect to the fourth ground, the habeas trial court noted that Charette testified at the habeas trial only that she did not know if Petitioner was at Okemo on the weekend at issue, which "leaves open the reasonable possibility that the petitioner was at Okemo, unbeknownst to [her] and not seen by her.” Id. The habeas trial court concluded that Charette's “testimony was of marginal impeachment value and does not undermine this court's confidence in the outcome of the criminal trial.” Id.
Petitioner appealed the trial court's denial, asserting that the habeas court improperly found no ineffective assistance of counsel where his trial defense counsel (1) had failed to present testimony from four witnesses about the Petitioner's whereabouts at the family Christmas party on December 24, 2007; (2) referenced the complainant as the “victim” and failed to object or request a curative instruction when the prosecutor also referred to the complainant as the “victim,” and (3) by “not wanting to” investigate the Okemo ski house allegations “and present an alibi defense, after Grady informed counsel to do so with Ther[esa] (Tess) Charette who[m] CD [the victim] had placed on the scene the night in question.” See Pet'r's ex. 14(a), Pet'r Appellate Brief, ECF No. 1-2 at 2. See also Donald G. v. Comm'r of Correction, 203 Conn.App. 58, 59-60, 74, cert. denied, 337 Conn. 907 (2021).
As to the first ground, the Appellate Court concluded that the habeas trial court properly held that Petitioner “failed to sustain his burden of overcoming the presumption that counsel's actions were the result of sound trial strategy.” Id. at 69-70.
With regard to Petitioner's second claim, the Appellate Court concluded that Petitioner had failed at trial to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by any deficient performance by trial defense counsel arising from references to “the victim” as Petitioner had been acquitted of one of the sexual assault charges. Id. at 72-73.
With respect to his third ground - the claim that “trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by neglecting to interview and to procure the testimony of an alleged witness, Theresa Charette, who claimed that she had not seen the petitioner during the Okemo ski trip,” id. at 74 -, the Appellate Court noted that the Petitioner's trial defense counsel had testified in the habeas trial that the Petitioner had admitted to him being present at the Okemo ski trip. As a result, the Appellate Court concluded that the “decision of the petitioner's trial counsel not to pursue testimony from a witness in an effort to rebut a claim that the petitioner had readily admitted as true cannot be deemed unreasonable or tactically unsound.” Id. at 74-75.
On June 29, 2021, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied Petitioner's certification for appeal. Donald G. v. Comm'r of Correction, 337 Conn. 907 (2021).
On June 19, 2017, Petitioner filed another application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Judicial District of Tolland assigned docket number TSR-CV17-4008907-S. Donald G. v. Comm'r of Correction, No. CV174008907S, 2022 WL 375499, at *1 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 20, 2022). In his amended petition Petitioner asserted ineffective assistance of appellate counsel on his direct appeal. Id. The habeas trial court observed that Petitioner's “amended petition aver[red] ten distinct ways in which appellate counsel rendered deficient performance on direct appeal, although the petitioner has grouped them together into four groupings.” Donald G., 2022 WL...
To continue reading
Request your trial