Salmon v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 19 December 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 39095 |
Citation | 178 Conn.App. 695,177 A.3d 566 |
Parties | Marvin SALMON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Naomi T. Fetterman, for the appellant (petitioner).
Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Angela R. Macchiarulo, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
DiPentima, C.J., and Prescott and Mihalakos, Js.
The petitioner, Marvin Salmon, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he failed to establish the ineffectiveness of his pretrial counsel. For the reasons set forth herein, we agree with the petitioner, and conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We further conclude that the habeas court made a clearly erroneous factual finding that underlies its determination that pretrial counsel did not render deficient performance. We also determine that the habeas court did not make a determination regarding whether any assumed deficient performance prejudiced the petitioner. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for a new trial.
The record discloses the following facts and procedural history. Our prior decision on the petitioner's direct appeal in State v. Salmon , 66 Conn. App. 131, 133–34, 783 A.2d 1193 (2001), cert. denied, 259 Conn. 908, 789 A.2d 997 (2002), set forth the following facts:
During a pretrial conference on November 20, 1998, the petitioner was extended two plea offers. On December 11, 1998, the petitioner formally rejected both plea offers. In February, 2000, following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a(a), as enhanced pursuant to General Statutes § 53–202k for using a firearm. Thereafter, the court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective term of forty-five years of incarceration. This court affirmed the petitioner's conviction on direct appeal. See id., at 131, 783 A.2d 1193.
Thirteen years later, on July 17, 2013, the self-represented petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On November 2, 2015, the petitioner, represented by appointed counsel, filed the amended petition operative in this appeal. In the sole count of the amended petition, the petitioner alleged that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated because his pretrial counsel, Attorney Donald Cardwell, failed to inform him of Holmes, the second eyewitness, during plea negotiations.1 Specifically, the petitioner alleged that Attorney Donald Cardwell's performance was deficient, in that he: "[1] failed to meaningfully explain a plea offer to the petitioner; [2] failed and neglected to properly and adequately advise the petitioner of the desirability of a plea offer; [3] failed to adequately inform and advise the petitioner with regards to the relative strength of the state's case and the possibility of success at trial; and [4] affirmatively misadvised the petitioner regarding the desirability of proceeding to trial." The petitioner further claimed that "but for [his] counsel's deficient performance, the result of [his] criminal proceedings would have been different and more favorable to [him]."
The habeas trial was held on March 3, 2016. Following the trial, the habeas court, Fuger, J. , denied the habeas petition in an oral decision in which it concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that Attorney Donald Cardwell had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.2 Thereafter, the petitioner, pursuant to General Statutes § 52–470, petitioned the habeas court for certification to appeal the following issue: "Whether the petitioner's constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated." The habeas court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and this appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We agree with the petitioner.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction , 169 Conn. App. 813, 821–22, 153 A.3d 8 (2016), cert. denied, 325 Conn. 904, 156 A.3d 536 (2017).
As discussed subsequently in part II A of this opinion, we conclude that the habeas court made a clearly erroneous factual finding relating to the issue of whether Attorney Donald Cardwell rendered deficient performance by failing to advise the petitioner of Holmes' existence during pretrial plea negotiations. Because the resolution of the petitioner's underlying claim involves issues that are debatable among jurists of reason and could have been resolved by a court in a different manner, we conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
We now turn to the petitioner's substantive claim that the habeas court improperly concluded that he had failed to establish the ineffectiveness of his pretrial counsel. Specifically, he argues that (1) Attorney Donald Cardwell rendered deficient performance in that he failed to advise the petitioner of Holmes' existence during pretrial plea negotiations, and (2) he was prejudiced by Cardwell's deficient performance.
As a preliminary matter, we set forth our standard of review and the legal principles governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Leon v. Comm'r of Corr.
...right to the effective assistance of counsel at all critical states of criminal proceedings. Salmon v. Commissioner of Correction , 178 Conn. App. 695, 702, 177 A.3d 566 (2017) ; see also Kellman v. Commissionerof Correction , 178 Conn. App. 63, 69, 174 A.3d 206 (2017) (axiomatic that right......
-
Cator v. Comm'r of Corr.
...of the habeas court's denial of the petition for certification." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmon v. Commissioner of Correction , 178 Conn. App. 695, 700–701, 177 A.3d 566 (2017).As discussed subsequently in parts II and III of this opinion, we conclude that the petitioner's under......
-
Dennis v. Comm'r of Corr.
...or the prejudice prong, whichever is easier." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Salmon v. Commissioner of Correction , 178 Conn. App. 695, 703–704, 177 A.3d 566 (2017).A With the foregoing legal framework in mind, we address the petitioner's claim that the habeas court i......
- State v. Azevedo