H.P.T.* v. Comm'r of Correction.
Decision Date | 22 March 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 31281.,31281. |
Citation | 127 Conn.App. 480,14 A.3d 1047 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | H.P.T.*v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael Proto, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Kevin T. Kane, chief state's attorney, for the appellant (respondent).Adele V. Patterson, senior assistant public defender, for the appellee (petitioner).GRUENDEL, ALVORD and DUPONT, Js.GRUENDEL, J.
The respondent, the commissioner of correction, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court granting, in part, the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, H.P.T. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly vacated the petitioner's underlying criminal sentence on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel during pretrial proceedings. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of the respondent's appeal. In 2002, the state charged the petitioner with various criminal offenses in two informations. Specifically, in docket number CR–02–0562000, the state charged the petitioner with one count of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–60 (a)(2), two counts of assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–61 (a)(1) and one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53–21(a)(1). In docket number CR–02–0563146, the state charged the petitioner with three counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53–21(a)(1) and one count of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53a–71 (a)(1).
Attorney Thompson Page represented the petitioner throughout the pretrial phase of the criminal proceedings. On July 31, 2003, during a pretrial conference, the prosecutor offered that if the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges of sexual assault in the first degree, risk of injury to a child and assault in the second degree, she would recommend a sentence of twenty-five years incarceration, execution suspended after twelve years, with ten years of probation (state's offer). Also during this pretrial conference, the court, Solomon, J., made its own offer of twenty years incarceration, execution suspended after nine years, with twenty years of probation (court's offer). 1 The prosecutor neither explicitly accepted nor rejected the court's offer, thus, acquiescing to its terms.2
In August, 2003, Page met with the petitioner to discuss the terms of the court's offer. Page did not, however, retain the services of an interpreter to assist the petitioner, whose native language is Vietnamese, in understanding the terms of the court's offer and the charges to which he would be pleading guilty.3 Additionally, Page never advised the petitioner to accept the court's offer, and, on September 18, 2003, the petitioner rejected both the state's offer and the court's offer. Thereafter, in October, 2003, Page withdrew his representation of the petitioner, and the petitioner retained attorneys Michael A. Georgetti and Salvatore Bonanno to represent him throughout trial.
In 2004, the matter was tried to a jury.4 On April 15, 2004, the jury returned a verdict, finding the petitioner guilty of one count of sexual assault in the second degree, one count of assault in the second degree, two counts of assault in the third degree and two counts of risk of injury to a child. The petitioner was found not guilty of the remaining two counts of risk of injury to a child. On July 26, 2004, the court, Keller, J., sentenced the petitioner to a total effective term of twenty-three years incarceration, execution suspended after thirteen years, with ten years of probation. The petitioner directly appealed to this court, and his conviction was affirmed. See State v. H.P.T., 100 Conn.App. 183, 917 A.2d 586, cert. denied, 282 Conn. 917, 925 A.2d 1100 (2007).
The petitioner then commenced the present action for a writ of habeas corpus. In his third amended petition, filed November 18, 2008, he alleged, inter alia, that Page provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to communicate and to advise him adequately with respect to the court's offer. 5 More specifically, he alleged that because Page had “failed to translate and explain” the court's offer, he “so lacked an understanding of that offer that [he] ... was unaware ... it had even been made” until well after his criminal conviction and sentencing. He further alleged that had Page “adequately communicate[d] and ... advise[d]” him to accept the court's offer, he would have accepted the nine year sentence and not proceeded to trial.
Following the presentation of evidence, the habeas court issued a memorandum of decision, filed June 18, 2009, granting, in part,6 the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court concluded that Page's pretrial representation of the petitioner, particularly with respect to the plea negotiation process, amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland 7 and its progeny. The habeas court reasoned that, given Page's deficient representation during pretrial proceedings, the petitioner was prejudiced by rejecting the court's offer, which carried a shorter term of incarceration than that which the petitioner received after trial. Nonetheless, finding “no constitutional infirmity related” to the petitioner's conviction, the habeas court declined to vacate the jury verdicts and to remand the case for a new trial. Instead, the habeas court directed the sentencing court to vacate the petitioner's sentence and to resentence the petitioner “to a total effective sentence that may not exceed the court indicated sentence of twenty years to serve, execution suspended after the service of nine years, followed by twenty years probation.” This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The respondent now claims that the habeas court improperly vacated the petitioner's sentence on the basis of the ineffective assistance of Page during the pretrial phase of the underlying criminal case. In support of this claim, the respondent does not argue that the habeas court incorrectly concluded that Page's pretrial representation of the petitioner constituted deficient performance. Rather, the respondent claims that, because there is no substantive statutory or constitutional right to a plea offer, the petitioner could not possibly show that he was prejudiced by Page's deficient pretrial performance. Therefore, as argued by the respondent, even assuming that Page's pretrial representation amounted to deficient performance, the habeas court incorrectly determined that he was prejudiced thereby, as otherwise required under Strickland.
Before addressing the merits of the respondent's claim, we begin by setting forth the applicable legal principles and standard of review governing our analysis. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn.App. 560, 566–67, 992 A.2d 1200, cert. granted on other grounds, 297 Conn. 912, 995 A.2d 954 (2010).
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 574, 992 A.2d 1200.
Finally, “[h]abeas corpus is a civil proceeding.” Collins v. York, 159 Conn. 150, 153, 267 A.2d 668 (1970). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr., 31763.
...83 Conn.App. 543, 549–53, 851 A.2d 313, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914, 859 A.2d 569 (2004); see also H.P.T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn.App. 480, 488, 14 A.3d 1047 (2011). In Sanders, the petitioner, Thomas Sanders, was charged in the underlying criminal matter with robbery in the......
-
Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr.—dissent
...83 Conn. App. 543, 549-53, 851 A.2d 313, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 914, 859 A.2d 569 (2004); see also H. P. T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn. App. 480, 488, 14 A.3d 1047 (2011). In Sanders, the petitioner, Thomas Sanders, was charged in the underlying criminal matter with robbery in......
-
H.P.T. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...trial court to resentence the petitioner in accordance with the sentence proposed in the plea offer. H.P.T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn.App. 480, 483–84, 14 A.3d 1047 (2011). The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed the order of th......
-
H.P.T. v. Comm'r of Correction
...trial court to resentence the petitioner in accordance with the sentence proposed in the plea offer. H. P. T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn. App. 480, 483-84, 14 A.3d 1047 (2011). The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly affirmed the order of......