Rodriguez v. Comm'r of Corr.

• Decision Date: 01 July 2014
• Docket Number: SC 18940
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: EDDIE RODRIGUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

EDDIE RODRIGUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

SC 18940

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Argued February 11, 2014

Officially released July 1, 2014

The "officially released" date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the "officially released" date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the "officially released" date.

All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and

Vertefeuille, Js.

April E. Brodeur, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

Timothy J. Sugrue, 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).

Opinion

ROGERS, C. J. The dispositive issue in this habeas corpus appeal is whether the petitioner, Eddie Rodriguez, was denied his right to the effective assistance of counsel because there was a constitutionally impermissible risk that the jury would impute to him the alleged improprieties of his attorney, who had been prosecuted but acquitted of a nonviolent and dissimilar crime in the same judicial district in which the petitioner was prosecuted. The petitioner appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the habeas court's denial of his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, 131 Conn. App. 336, 338, 27 A.3d 404 (2011). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly applied this court's precedent in Phillips v. Warden, 220 Conn. 112, 595 A.2d 1356 (1991), in concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his attorney's performance. We conclude that the Appellate Court properly applied Phillips, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following facts and procedural background. "In connection with an incident involving the petitioner's estranged girlfriend, which occurred in October, 1990, the petitioner was charged with burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes [Rev. to 1989] § 53a-101 (a) (1), attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes [Rev. to 1989] §§ 53a-49 (a) and 53a-59 (a) (1), robbery in the third degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1989) § 53a-136 (a), interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes [Rev. to 1989] § 53a-167a (a) and carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of General Statutes [Rev. to 1989] § 53-206. On May 29, 1991, [A]ttorney Frank Cannatelli filed an appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

"Prior to representing the petitioner, Cannatelli had been charged with two counts of bribery of a witness in an unrelated case. Cannatelli pleaded not guilty to both charges and elected a jury trial. In October, 1991, a jury trial was conducted in Meriden. On October 29, 1991, the jury acquitted Cannatelli of both charges.

"Jury selection for the petitioner's criminal trial in New Haven commenced on November 26, 1991. On the first day of jury selection, the petitioner voiced concern to the trial court that Cannatelli's recent criminal prosecution created a conflict of interest. After inquiring into the petitioner's claim, the court was not persuaded that cause existed to delay the proceedings. Thereafter, a jury was selected and the presentation of evidence began on December 2, 1991. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts, and the petitioner was sentenced on March 6, 1992, to a term of imprisonment of sixteenyears, execution suspended after nine years, and five years of probation. The petitioner appealed from his conviction to [the Appellate Court], which affirmed the judgment. State v. Rodriguez, 61 Conn. App. 700, 767 A.2d 756 (2001).

"In 2002, after he had commenced his probation, the petitioner was arrested and charged with violating the terms of his probation in violation of General Statutes [Rev. to 2001] § 53a-32. In 2003, the petitioner was found to have violated his probation, and the court sentenced him to serve the remaining seven years of his unexecuted sentence.

"On December 16, 2008, the petitioner filed his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that Cannatelli had rendered ineffective assistance due to an actual conflict of interest. The petitioner alleged that Cannatelli's criminal prosecution shortly before the petitioner's criminal trial had created an inherent conflict of interest that adversely affected Cannatelli's ability to represent the petitioner in his criminal trial. In his pretrial brief, the petitioner explained that Cannatelli's criminal prosecution constituted a conflict of interest because it prevented him from preparing for the petitioner's criminal trial. Additionally, the petitioner contended that Cannatelli's criminal prosecution constituted a conflict of interest pursuant to . . . Phillips v. Warden, [supra, 220 Conn. 112].

"On April 29, 2009, the habeas court conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which Cannatelli, the petitioner and George Gray, an investigator with the [O]ffice of the [C]hief [P]ublic [D]efender, testified, and the court received exhibits. After considering the evidence, the court found that Cannatelli was prepared and ready to go to trial on [the petitioner's] case. The court also found that the media coverage of Cannatelli's prosecution was minimal, and that Cannatelli, during [individual] voir dire in the petitioner's criminal trial, had asked each venireperson generally whether he or she had any prior knowledge of Cannatelli and that no venireperson indicated that he or she had any such knowledge.

"On the basis of these findings, the habeas court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish that Cannatelli was actively representing conflicting interests at the time that he represented the petitioner. The court also concluded that the facts of the petitioner's case did not establish a conflict of interest pursuant to Phillips v. Warden, supra, 220 Conn. 112. The court then denied the petitioner's second amended petition. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the court denied on August 19, 2009." (Footnotes omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 131 Conn. App. 338-41. The petitioner appealed from the habeas court's denial of certification to the Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court determined that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for certification to appeal. Id., 344. Specifically, the Appellate Court concluded that the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim deserved to proceed further because it presented the novel question of whether there was a constitutionally impermissible risk that a jury would attribute an attorney's conduct to his client, when the attorney had been acquitted of a nonviolent and dissimilar crime in the same judicial district in which his client faced criminal prosecution. Id., 347; see Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994) (petitioner may establish abuse of discretion by demonstrating that "the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further" [internal quotation marks omitted]). Nonetheless, the Appellate Court concluded that the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed on its merits, and, accordingly, affirmed the judgment of the habeas court. Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 131 Conn. App. 349. This certified appeal followed.¹

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that he failed to demonstrate a conflict of interest pursuant to Phillips that deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of counsel. In response, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, claims that the Appellate Court properly distinguished Phillips from the present case and correctly determined that there was not a constitutionally impermissible risk that the jury would impute to the petitioner the alleged improprieties of his trial attorney. We conclude that the Appellate Court properly applied Phillips in concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a conflict of interest of constitutional magnitude. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

We begin with the well settled standard of review governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. "When reviewing the decision of a habeas court, the facts found by the habeas court may not be disturbed unless the findings were clearly erroneous. . . . The issue, however, of [w]hether the representation [that] a defendant received at trial was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact. Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S....