Moye v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 24 December 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 34827.,34827. |
Citation | 81 A.3d 1222,147 Conn.App. 325 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Marcus MOYE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John L. Cordani, Jr., Waterbury, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Sarah Hanna, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and David Clifton, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
LAVINE, BEACH and KELLER, Js.
The petitioner, Marcus Moye, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that (1) the court erred in rejecting his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective because of his failure to investigate the case properly and to present an alibi defense, and (2) he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial and appellate counsel did not raise a double jeopardy claim. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The following facts, as set forth in this court's opinion regarding the petitioner's direct appeal, and procedural history are relevant. On August 3, 2003, at 8 p.m., the victim was found in New Haven fatally shot in the chest. State v. Moye, 112 Conn.App. 605, 606, 963 A.2d 690, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 906, 967 A.2d 1221 (2009). The victim belonged to a gang that had been feuding with another gang, of which the petitioner was a member. Id., at 606–607, 963 A.2d 690. A police officer observed a man fleeing from the scene on a bicycle and reported his physical characteristics. Id., at 606, 963 A.2d 690. Another police officer, Dean Reynolds, observed a man, later identified as the petitioner, who matched the physical description provided by the other officer, riding a bicycle in a different location. Id., at 606–607, 963 A.2d 690. Reynolds is claimed to have mentioned his observation in a police report.
The police questioned a number of possible witnesses in connection with this incident, including Marvin Gore. Id., at 607, 963 A.2d 690. Gore told police of another incident involving the petitioner: On August 3, 2003, between 7 and 8 p.m., four blocks from the scene of the murder, the petitioner pulled a gun from his pocket and ordered Gore to hand over everything in his pockets. Id. The petitioner struck Gore in the head when Gore responded that he had nothing. Id.
The petitioner ultimately was charged with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29–35. He was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to fifty years incarceration. The petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
In March, 2011, the petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate the case properly and failing to present an alibi defense.1 The habeas court found that the petitioner never told his trial counsel that he had an alibi defense, and accordingly, that trial counsel did not render deficient performance in failing to investigate and present an alibi defense of which he was unaware. The court further determined that even if the petitioner had informed his trial counsel of the alibi defense and trial counsel had acted deficiently, there was no prejudice because there was no reasonable probability that an alibi defense would have been successful. The court denied the petition and granted certification to appeal. This appeal followed.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Toles v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn.App. 717, 721–22, 967 A.2d 576, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 906, 978 A.2d 1114 (2009).
The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that his trial counsel did not render deficient performance. He argues that “[t]he fundamental question raised by this appeal is: If it is indeed true that [the petitioner] never told [his trial counsel] about his alibi defense, was [trial counsel's] performance nonetheless deficient for failing to act on Reynolds' police report?” 2 We decline to review this claim—that trial counsel should have learned of the alibi through Reynolds' report—because it was not raised in the habeas petition, the report itself was not in evidence, and the habeas court did not decide the issue. See Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 129 Conn.App. 188, 198, 19 A.3d 705, (we “will not consider claims not raised in the habeas petition or [not] decided by the habeas court”), cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901, 31 A.3d 1177 (2011).
Because the habeas court's conclusion regarding deficient performance must stand,3 we need not address the petitioner's claim regarding the prejudice prong. See State v. Lameirao, 135 Conn.App. 302, 327,42 A.3d 414 (, )cert. denied, 305 Conn. 915, 46 A.3d 171 (2012); see also Leatherwood v. Commissioner of Correction, 105 Conn.App. 644, 647, 938 A.2d 1285, (reviewing court can find against petitioner under either prong of Strickland ), cert. denied, 286 Conn. 908, 944 A.2d 979 (2008).
The petitioner also claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by the failure of his trial and appellate counsel to raise a double jeopardy claim. He argues that he previously had been charged with carrying a revolver without a permit in violation of § 29–35(a) on August 3, 2003, in New Haven, in connection with the attempted robbery of Gore, and that the charge alleging a violation of § 29–35(a) had been dismissed. 4 He argues that he has been charged twice under § 29–35(a) for the incidents occurring on August 3, 2003. The petitioner acknowledges that he raised this double jeopardy issue for the first time on this appeal and seeks review of his unpreserved claim under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989),5 and the plain error doctrine. 6
...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Moye v. Warden
-
Bowens v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 20204
...Warden , Docket No. CV-09-4003191, 2012 WL 3006297, *3 (Conn. Super. June 22, 2012) (same), aff'd sub nom. Moye v. Commissioner of Correction , 147 Conn. App. 325, 81 A.3d 1222 (2013), aff'd, 316 Conn. 779, 114 A.3d 925 (2015) ; State v. Sands , 123 N.H. 570, 612, 467 A.2d 202 (1983) (notin......
-
Whistnant v. Comm'r of Corr.
...to appeal the judgments rendered in those cases. See Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 67; Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 325, 328, 81 A.3d 1222 (2013), aff'd, 316 Conn. 779, 114 A.3d 925 (2015). In a habeas appeal following the granting of a petition for cert......
-
Moye v. Comm'r of Corr.
...for the first time a new theory as to why his attorney had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn.App. 325, 326, 81 A.3d 1222 (2013). Specifically, the petitioner argued that his attorney had failed to raise a double jeopardy claim that woul......