Horn v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 28 June 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 19364.,19364. |
Citation | 321 Conn. 767,138 A.3d 908 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Vernon HORN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, Eugene R. Calistro, Jr., senior assistant state's attorney, and Erika L. Brookman, assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (respondent).
Richard A. Reeve, New Haven, with whom was Allison M. Near, for the appellee (petitioner).
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, McDONALD, ESPINOSA and ROBINSON, Js.
The issue that we must resolve in this appeal is whether the habeas court properly granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Vernon Horn. After a joint jury trial with his codefendant, Marquis Jackson, the petitioner was convicted of ten offenses1 in connection with a robbery and murder he committed in 1999 in New Haven. Following the petitioner's direct appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Jackson, 73 Conn.App. 338, 341, 808 A.2d 388, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 929, 930, 814 A.2d 381 (2002). Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed, among other things, that he was deprived of his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during his trial because his counsel had failed to conduct an adequate pretrial investigation and had failed to adequately present a defense at trial.2 After a trial, the habeas court agreed with the petitioner's claim, granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered that the petitioner's conviction be set aside. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, then filed this appeal from the judgment of the habeas court.3 We conclude that the habeas court improperly granted the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.
The jury in the underlying criminal trial reasonably could have found the following facts, as set forth by the Appellate Court in its opinion addressing the petitioner's direct appeal from the judgment of conviction. “On January 24, 1999, at approximately 3:30 a.m., Jackson and [the petitioner], along with Steven Brown, entered the Dixwell Deli [deli] on Dixwell Avenue in New Haven, wearing masks and carrying handguns. As [the petitioner] entered the deli, he fired five or six shots from a nine millimeter pistol. One bullet struck Caprice Hardy, a customer, and killed him. A second bullet struck Abby Yousif, an owner of the deli, in the shoulder. Brown and Jackson followed [the petitioner] into the deli.
(Footnotes omitted.) State v. Jackson, supra, 73 Conn.App. at 342–43, 808 A.2d 388. The petitioner appealed from the judgment of conviction, and the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment. Id., at 341, 808 A.2d 388.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed, among other things, that his trial counsel, Leo Ahern, had failed to provide effective assistance at trial. Specifically, he raised the following two claims that are relevant to this appeal. First, he claimed that Ahern did not adequately investigate the state's theory that the petitioner was in possession of the cell phone that had been stolen during the course of the robbery and, if Ahern had investigated, he would have discovered witnesses who would have contradicted the state's theory. Second, he claimed that Ahern did not adequately investigate Brown's testimony that the petitioner had been with him before, during and after the robbery and murder and that, if Ahern had investigated, he would have discovered evidence that contradicted that testimony. In addition to these ineffective assistance of counsel claims, the petitioner claimed that he was deprived of his constitutional due process right to a fair trial because key state's witnesses perjured themselves during trial and that he was actually innocent. The habeas court conducted a trial on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus over the course of eight days.
After trial, the habeas court concluded that Ahern had failed to provide effective counsel to the petitioner when he failed to discover the evidence that undermined Brown's testimony that the petitioner had been with him before, during and after the robbery and murder, but it concluded that that failure was not prejudicial because the new evidence did not provide a complete alibi to the petitioner. In addition, the habeas court rejected the petitioner's constitutional and actual innocence claims. The habeas court also concluded, however, that, contrary to the state's theory at trial, the testimony of the new witnesses at the habeas trial regarding the stolen cell phone established that the cell phone could not have been in the petitioner's possession the day after the murder.4 The habeas court further concluded that Ahern's failure to obtain this information before the criminal trial was deficient performance and that the deficient performance had prejudiced the petitioner's defense. Accordingly, the court granted the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered that his conviction be set aside.
On appeal, the respondent concedes that Ahern provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to adequately investigate who was in possession of the stolen cell phone in the days following the robbery and murder, but contends that the habeas court incorrectly determined that Ahern's deficient performance was prejudicial to the petitioner. The petitioner disputes this claim and claims as alternative grounds for affirmance that the habeas court improperly determined that: (1) he was not prejudiced by Ahern's failure to investigate and discover the evidence that undermined Brown's testimony concerning the petitioner's whereabouts before, during and after the robbery and murder; (2) the state's use of perjured testimony did not deprive the petitioner of his constitutional due process right to a fair trial; and (3) the petitioner had failed to establish his claim of actual innocence. We agree with the respondent's claim and reject the petitioner's alternative grounds for affirmance.
Before addressing the parties' specific claims, we set forth the standard of review governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. “The habeas court is afforded broad discretion in making its factual findings, and those findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.... The application of the habeas court's factual findings to the pertinent legal standard, however, presents a mixed question of law and fact, which is subject to plenary review....
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bryant v. Commissioner of Correction, 290 Conn. 502, 509–10, 964 A.2d 1186, cert. denied sub nom. Murphy v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moye v. Warden
... ... Connecticut constitution. Horn v. Commissioner of ... Correction, 321 Conn. 767, 138 A.3d 908 (2016). Thus, ... ...
-
Collins v. Comm'r of Corr.
...but for that ineffectiveness, the outcome would have been different." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Horn v. Commissioner of Correction , 321 Conn. 767, 776, 138 A.3d 908 (2016)."In a habeas appeal, although this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unles......
-
Zachs v. Comm'r of Corr.
...but for that ineffectiveness, the outcome would have been different." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Horn v. Commissioner of Correction , 321 Conn. 767, 776, 138 A.3d 908 (2016)."In a habeas appeal, although this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unles......
-
Toccaline v. Comm'r of Corr.
...would most likely not have been convicted." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Horn v. Commissioner of Correction, 321 Conn. 767, 800–801, 138 A.3d 908 (2016).12 "The United States Supreme Court has not addressed the issue." Gould v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn.......