Lucas Betancourt v. Warden, CV124004762S

• Decision Date: 12 January 2016
• Docket Number: CV124004762S
• Court: Superior Court of Connecticut
• Parties: Lucas Betancourt (#149727) v. Warden

Lucas Betancourt (#149727)
v.
Warden

No. CV124004762S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Rockville, Geographic Area 19

January 12, 2016

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Hon. Vernon D. Oliver, J.

The petitioner, Lucas Betancourt, initiated this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his underlying criminal, habeas and habeas appellate counsel provided him ineffective legal representation. He further claims Brady, Salamon and due process violations. He seeks an order of this court vacating his convictions and returning the matter to the criminal court for further proceedings. The court finds the issues for the petitioner and grants the petition.

The respondent denies the claims and asserts several special defenses as to Count One.

I

Procedural History

In the criminal matter State v. Lucas Betancourt, CR05-337867, in the Waterbury Judicial District, the petitioner was charged with kidnapping in the first degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-92(a)(2)(B); conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48 and 53a-92(a)(2)(B); burglary in the first degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-101(a)(2); conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48 and 53a-101(a)(2); robbery in the second degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-135(a)(1); and conspiracy to commit robbery in the second degree, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-48 and 53a-135(a)(1).

The petitioner was charged with the aforementioned offenses with co-defendants Rico Torres, Michael Metevier and Felipe Buitrago, Jr. At his jury trial, the petitioner was represented by attorney Errol Skyers. After being convicted on all charges, the trial court (Cremins, J.), on February 23, 2006, sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of twenty-five years to serve. The petitioner appealed the conviction, and in affirming the judgment the Appellate Court made the following findings of fact. State v. Betancourt, 106 Conn.App. 627, 942 A.2d 557, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 910, 950 A.2d 1285 (2008). In his direct appeal, the petitioner was represented by attorney Joseph A. Jaumann. The following findings of that court are relevant to a disposition of the instant petition.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On January 29, 2005, the defendant drove his two nephews, Ricco Torres and Felipe Buitrago, his friend, Michael Meteiver, and his own six-year-old daughter to a McDonald's restaurant in Waterbury in a green Ford Escort. While at McDonald's the defendant and Meteiver had a discussion about stealing guns from the home of Meteiver's father-in-law, Mario Fusco, the victim. Meteiver was aware that the victim's son had a gun collection and that it had been kept at the victim's home. The defendant then drove his nephews Meteiver and his daughter to the victim's home

After arriving at the victim's home, the defendant ordered everyone except his daughter out of the car. The defendant directed Buitrago to watch from the front door and to enter the house last. The men then knocked on the victim's door, and when the victim answered, the men pushed themselves into the house, knocking the victim to the floor and breaking his glasses. After entering, the defendant and Torres bound the victim's hands and feet with duct tape and covered his head with a pillowcase. The defendant then asked the victim where he kept his guns and searched through the house looking for them even though the victim explained that he no longer kept his son's guns in his house. While searching, they stole $150 as well as the victim's bank card and a handgun. The defendant and Meteiver demanded of the victim the personal identification number for his bank card. After receiving it, the two men went to a Webster Bank automatic teller machine and tried unsuccessfully to withdraw funds from the victim's account. They then returned to the victim's home. After arriving, the defendant, Meteiver, Buitrago and Torres returned to the car where the defendant's daughter was waiting, and the defendant drove to his apartment in Naugatuck where he left his nephews and his daughter. The defendant then left the apartment with Meteiver. When he returned, he gave Buitrago the gun that either he or Meteiver had stolen from the victim's home and told Buitrago to put the gun in a drawer under the bed of the defendant's daughter. The defendant left the apartment again

In the meantime, the victim had called the police. An interview with the victim led the police to believe that Meteiver might be involved in the break-in because he was the only person who knew the victim had kept his son's gun collection in his home. The police found Meteiver and arrested him on an unrelated charge. During a search of Meteiver's person, the police found the keys to the victim's car and house. Meteiver admitted that he had taken part in the break-in at the victim's house and directed the police to the defendant's apartment to find the other individuals involved.

The police arrived at the defendant's apartment with a search warrant, where they found and arrested Buitrago and Torres. Buitrago told the police that the gun they were looking for was in a drawer under the bed of the defendant's daughter. The police found the gun, which was the gun taken from the victim's home, as well as some money and mail addressed to the defendant . A little while later, the defendant arrived at his apartment and was arrested.

The following day, the police found a green Ford Escort in the driveway next to the defendant's apartment. The police obtained a search warrant for the car and found a roll of duct tape inside. An analysis of the duct tape revealed that the torn end of the duct tape roll matched the torn end found on the victim's socks. Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty on all counts.

State v. Betancourt, supra, 106 Conn.App. 629-31 (emphasis added).

Regarding the relevant evidence at trial, the Appellate Court made the following additional findings of fact and reached certain conclusions of law concerning the charges and the evidence adduced at trial:

The defendant claims that the testimony given by Buitrago as a witness for the state was inconsistent and vague and failed to prove every element of each of the crimes charged . . . [i]n conducting our review, we are mindful that " [w]e do not sit as a [seventh] juror who may cast a vote against the verdict based [on] our feeling that some doubt of guilt is shown by the cold printed record . . . Rather, we must defer to the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morgan, 274 Conn. 790, 800, 877 A.2d 739 (2005) . . . [o]n appeal, we do not ask whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that would support a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [finder of fact's] verdict of guilty." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280, 929 A.2d 278 (2007). Our review of the record indicates that there was evidence before the jury from which it could find the defendant guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Because the defendant has raised his claim in general terms, we address each crime in turn.

The defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of § 53a-92(a)(2)(B), which provides in relevant part: " A person is guilty of kidnapping in the first degree when he abducts another person, and . . . (2) he restrains the person abducted with intent to . . . (B) accomplish or advance the commission of a felony . . ." In the present case, Buitrago testified that the defendant forced his way into the victim's home and duct taped the victim's arms and legs, restricting his movement. A pillowcase was then put over the victim's head. Once the victim was secure, Buitrago testified, the defendant asked the victim where the guns were and proceeded to search the home for guns. The victim, although unable specifically to identify the defendant, testified to the same events. There was sufficient evidence, therefore, from which the jury could have concluded that the defendant abducted the victim and restrained him with the intent to steal the victim's guns, which is a felony .

The defendant also was convicted of burglary in the first degree in violation of § 53a-101(a)(2). " A person is guilty of burglary in the first degree when he enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein, and . . . (2) in the course of committing the offense, he intentionally, knowingly or recklessly inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury on anyone." General Statutes § 53a-101(a).

The victim testified that upon hearing a knock at the front door of his home, he answered the door and immediately was knocked to the floor, where he was held down, and his hands and feet were bound with duct tape. Buitrago testified that it was the defendant who forced his way into the victim's home, knocking the victim down and, subsequently, taping his hands and feet. Buitrago also testified that the defendant's purpose in forcibly entering the house was to steal guns that belonged to the victim . In addition, Stanley Stasaitis, a detective with the Waterbury police department who responded to the victim's 911 call, noticed red marks on the right side of the victim's forehead and offered him medical assistance. From this evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that

...