Lawrence v. Comm'r of Correction
Decision Date | 28 December 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 30714.,30714. |
Citation | 9 A.3d 772,125 Conn.App. 759 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Tarrance LAWRENCE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
David B. Rozwaski, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and Jeffrey Robert Struski, special deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
BISHOP, HARPER and PELLEGRINO, Js.
The petitioner, Tarrance Lawrence, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the respondent, the commissioner of correction, on his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and (2) denied the petition for certification to appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our disposition of the petitioner's appeal. At the petitioner's murder trial in July, 1999, special public defender Donald Dakers requested a jury instruction on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. The trial court, accordingly, instructed the jury that if it found that the state had proved the elements of murder but the petitioner had proved the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance, it must find him guilty of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. Subsequently, he was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a, carrying a pistol without a permit in violation ofGeneral Statutes § 29-35(a) and tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155 (a)(1). On December 3, 1999, he was sentenced to thirty-five years on the manslaughter count, two years for carrying a pistol without a permit and three years for tampering with physical evidence, to be served concurrently.
On direct appeal, the petitioner claimed that the court had instructed the jury improperly on the presumption of innocence, and we affirmed the conviction. See State v. Lawrence, 67 Conn.App. 284, 786 A.2d 1227 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 919, 791 A.2d 567 (2002). He subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22, alleging that he had been convicted under the wrong manslaughter statute. The trial court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction, and our Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. See State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147, 913 A.2d 428 (2007).
On August 17, 2006, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his amended petition of April 28, 2008, he claimed ineffective assistance of trial counsel on the ground that Dakers had requested a jury charge under the wrong manslaughter statute and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failure to raise a claim on direct appeal challenging the propriety of a conviction under that statute. The respondent filed a motion for summary judgment on June 24, 2008, on the ground that the petition presented no genuine issue of material fact and could be decided as a matter of law. After hearing oral argument on the motion on October 10, 2008, the habeas court rendered summary judgment in favor of the respondent on November 26, 2008. The court denied the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal on December 4, 2008. This appeal followed.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Figueroa v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn.App. 862, 866, 3 A.3d 202 (2010), quoting Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).
To conduct this analysis, therefore, we must examine the habeas court's rendering of summary judgment. Practice Book § 23-37 provides in relevant part that a habeas court may grant summary judgment "if the pleadings, affidavits and any other evidence submitted show that there is no genuine issue of material fact between the parties requiring a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." On review from the granting of a motion for summary judgment, our task is to determine whether the court correctly determined that the moving party was entitled, as a matter of law, to summary judgment on the basis of the absence of any genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial. Because this inquiry requires a legal determination, our review is plenary. Newsome v. Commissioner of Correction, 109 Conn.App. 159, 163, 951 A.2d 582, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 918, 957 A.2d 878 (2008).
In support of his claim that the court improperly rendered summary judgment in favor of the respondent, the petitioner claims that the court improperly found that he could not demonstrate that he was prejudicedby the ineffective assistance of counsel and improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing before rendering judgment. We are not persuaded.
We turn first to the claim that the petitioner was prejudiced by the actions of his counsel. (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Tuck v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn.App. 189, 194, 1 A.3d 1111 (2010).
The habeas petition was premised on the assertion that both trial and appellate counsel should have argued that the petitioner was entitled to a charge on manslaughter in the first degree under General Statutes § 53a-55 1 as a lesser includedoffense of murder. Instead,trial counsel requested a charge on manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm under § 53a-55a,2 which carries a higher penalty. 3 In its memorandum of decision, the habeas court found that the petitioner "was not entitled to receive an instruction on manslaughter in the first degree even if requested" and, therefore, that the petitioner was not prejudiced by counsel's actions. We agree.
The difference between the two first degree manslaughter statutes is that § 53a-55a requires the state to prove not only the essential elements of manslaughter in the first degree as defined in § 53a-55 but also an extra element, namely, that the defendant used or threatened to use a firearm in the commission of that crime. In the present case, the information specifically charged the petitioner with "caus[ing] the death of [the victim] by the use of a firearm...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Given that the state assumed the burden of proving this element in charging the petitioner with having committed murder with a firearm, there is no support in our jurisprudence for the petitioner's argument that he was entitled to an instruction on manslaughter in the first degree under § 53a-55 ratherthan manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm under § 53a-55a. To the contrary, where the state files an information charging a defendant with murder committed with a firearm, our appellate courts consistently have held that it is proper to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lebron v. Comm'r of Corr.
...(dismissal pursuant to Practice Book § 23–29 ), cert. denied, 314 Conn. 936, 102 A.3d 1113 (2014) ; Lawrence v. Commissioner of Correction , 125 Conn. App. 759, 762, 9 A.3d 772 (2010) (summary judgment pursuant to Practice Book § 23–37 ), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 936, 17 A.3d 474 (2011).8 Fo......
-
Evans v. Warden
... ... Rogers v. Commissioner of Correction, 143 Conn.App ... 206, 210, 70 A.3d 1068 (2013), citing and quoting ... Bridgeport ... trial ... " (Footnote omitted.) Lawrence v ... Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn.App. 759, 762, 9 ... A.2d 772 (2010), ... ...
-
Alexander v. Warden
...parties requiring a trial and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ... Lawrence v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn.App. 759, 762, 9 A.3d 772 (2010)." Eric M. v. Commissioner of Correction, 153 Conn.App. 837, 842-43, 108 A.3d 1128 (2014), cert. denied, 315 Conn.......
-
Eric M. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...inquiry requires a legal determination, our review is plenary.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lawrence v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn.App. 759, 762, 9 A.3d 772 (2010). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in granting the respondent's motion for summary......