Little v. Warden
Citation | 88 A.3d 621,53 Conn.Supp. 236 |
Decision Date | 26 August 2011 |
Docket Number | No. CV–08–4002685–S.,CV–08–4002685–S. |
Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Troy LITTLE v. WARDEN, STATE PRISON. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert T. Rimmer, Old Saybrook, for the petitioner.
David Clifton, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the respondent.
The petitioner, Troy Little, alleges in his Amended Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on December 20, 2010, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel prior to his criminal trial, at his criminal trial, and on appeal from his conviction. In particular, the petitioner claims in Count One that his trial counsel, Attorney Thomas Farver, failed to: (1) communicate to him a plea bargain offer made by the state; 1 (2) properly examine a key witness; and (3) request “balanc[ing]” language in the court's consciousness of guilt charge. In that same count, the petitioner alleges that his appellate counsel, Richard E. Condon, Jr., failed to adequately address the consciousness of guilt charge on appeal.
The trial of the matter was concluded before the court on May 13, 2011. The court heard from five witnesses: the petitioner; Attorney Farver; Attorney Condon (by deposition), Attorney John Waddock, the prosecutor in the petitioner's criminal case; and Darrin Stanley (by videoconference), the witness whom the petitioner alleges was not properly examined by Attorney Farver. The court also received as exhibits: Attorney Farver's notes of a conversation with Attorney Waddock (Pet. Ex. 1); the transcripts of the trial in the underlying criminal case ; documents related to the petitioner's appeal (Pet. Ex. 5–8); and the notice and transcript of Attorney Condon's deposition (Pet. Ex. 9–10).
The petitioner was the defendant in a criminal case, docket number CR–01–0499262, in the Judicial District of New Haven, in which he was charged with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29–35. The jury found the petitioner not guilty of murder, but found him guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a–55a and of the carrying a pistol without a permit charge. The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of thirty-two years to serve. The petitioner was represented at the trial court level by Attorney Farver.
The petitioner appealed his conviction to the Appellate Court, where he raised two grounds. First, he argued that the trial court violated his due process rights by marshaling the evidence in favor of the state. Second, he argued that the prosecutor committed misconduct that resulted in a denial of the petitioner's due process rights to a fair trial. The appellate court rejected the petitioner's claims and affirmed his convictions. State v. Little, 88 Conn.App. 708, 870 A.2d 1170, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 916, 879 A.2d 895 (2005). Attorney Condon represented the petitioner both on his appeal and his unsuccessful petition for certification to our Supreme Court.
As set forth by our Appellate Court, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. “On the evening of August 16, 2000, the [petitioner] was walking with four young women along the sidewalk on Lilac Street in New Haven. The victim, Kishawn Council, drove a black car alongside the group as it walked. There were three other men in the victim's car. The victim called out to the women to get their attention, and the [petitioner] began to stare into the victim's car. The victim asked the [petitioner], ‘What you looking at?’ and the [petitioner] and the victim began to argue. The victim's car continued to follow alongside the group as the two men argued.
Id. at 710–11, 870 A.2d 1170. Additional facts will be discussed as necessary,
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Summerville v. Warden, 229 Conn. 397, 419, 641 A.2d 1356 (1994). Here, the petitioner claims that the ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel has led to such a result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn.App. 499, 504, 835 A.2d 1036 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 918, 841 A.2d 1190 (2004). In particular, counsel's decision not to call certain witnesses or offer certain evidence for strategic reasons is entitled to this strong presumption of reasonableness. Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, 103 Conn.App. 366, 368, 928 A.2d 1245, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 921, 933 A.2d 723 (2007).
As to the prejudice prong, Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 691–92, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Consequently, the petitioner must affirmatively show that his counsel's performance had an adverse impact on the defense. Id. at 693, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Put another way, in order to meet the prejudice prong, the petitioner must prove that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Little v. Comm'r of Corr., 3:14-cv-654 (JAM)
...petitioner to atotal effective sentence of 32 years of imprisonment. See ibid.; see also Little v. Warden, State Prison, 53 Conn. Supp. 236, 238-39, 88 A.3d 621, 624 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011) (state habeas court ruling describing facts and procedural background). Petitioner appealed. On May 3......
-
Little v. Comm'r of Corr.
...and the notice and transcript of Condon's deposition. The court denied the petition on August 26, 2011. See Little v. Warden, State Prison, 53 Conn. Supp. 236 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011). Little appealed this decision to the Connecticut Appellate Court, which dismissed the appeal on January 14,......
-
Little v. Comm'r of Corr.
...fully addresses the issues raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law. See Little v. Warden, 53 Conn. Supp. 236, A.3d (2011). It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat thediscussion contained therein. See Talton v. Commissioner of Co......
-
Little v. Comm'r of Corr., 33910.
...issues raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law. See Little v. Warden, 53 Conn.Supp. 236, ––– A.3d ––––, 2011 WL 11574806 (2011). It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Talton v. Commissione......