Thergood v. Com'R of Correction
Decision Date | 12 August 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 28005.,28005. |
Citation | 109 Conn.App. 710,952 A.2d 854 |
Parties | Lamont THERGOOD v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, and Gerard P. Eisenman, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
HARPER, ROBINSON and FOTI, Js.
The petitioner, Lamont Thergood, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly determined that he had failed to demonstrate that he had been prejudiced by his counsel's failure to challenge adequately the state's contention that he knowingly and intelligently waived his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a(a).1 He was sentenced to a total effective term of fifty years incarceration. The petitioner appealed to this court. The following relevant facts were set forth in State v. Thergood, 75 Conn.App. 527, 816 A.2d 665, cert. denied, 263 Conn. 916, 821 A.2d 771 (2003). "Prior to trial, the [petitioner] filed a motion to suppress several of his statements, including the confession. The court held a hearing on the motion on October 23, 2000, at which Detectives Heitor Teixeira and Erno Nandori of the Bridgeport police department testified. Teixeira's and Nandori's testimony at the suppression hearing revealed [that the] detectives held the [petitioner] in custody and interrogated him before advising him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v. Arizona, [supra, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602].... Teixeira and Nandori reviewed with the [petitioner] the form used by the Bridgeport police for the waiver of Miranda rights. The form, which was admitted into evidence at the hearing, bears the handwritten initials LT next to each of the five numbered Miranda warnings. The [petitioner's] full signature appears directly beneath a statement waiving his Miranda rights. After completing the form, the [petitioner] indicated to the detectives that he wanted to make a statement. The detectives asked the [petitioner] questions, and Nandori typed both the questions and the [petitioner's] oral responses on a computer. In the statement, the [petitioner] admitted responsibility for the shooting on Knowlton Street.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thergood, supra, 75 Conn.App. at 529-30, 816 A.2d 665.
The petitioner claimed on direct appeal that Id., at 531, 816 A.2d 665. This court affirmed the petitioner's conviction after concluding that the state had demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the confession did not contribute to the petitioner's conviction. Id., at 533, 816 A.2d 665.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged that he was deprived of the effective representation of trial defense counsel. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that his trial counsel failed to challenge adequately the state's contention that he knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights. The petition came before the habeas court on April 27, 2006. After hearing testimony from the petitioner's trial counsel, a psychologist retained by trial counsel and a forensic psychiatrist retained by appellate counsel and admitting into evidence the police incident reports and the petitioner's written statements, the court denied the petition. The court granted the petition for certification to appeal. This appeal followed.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707, 712-13, 946 A.2d 1203 (2008).
We set forth the standard of review applicable to the petitioner's appeal. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 717, 104 S.Ct. 2052.
The petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that he had failed to establish prejudice. He argues that counsel's deficient performance "improperly allowed the jurors to ... rely upon [his] signed and sworn written confession, and the tainted fruit thereof, in finding [him] guilty of murder even though [the] confession was illegally obtained, involuntary and legally unreliable." We disagree.
In its memorandum of decision, the court determined that trial counsel
The court further determined that although counsel's performance was deficient, the petitioner failed to show prejudice as required by Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. In reaching that conclusion, the habeas court relied on this court's conclusion in State v. Thergood, supra, 75 Conn.App. at 533, 816 A.2d 665, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Sosin v. Sosin
-
Ruiz v. Warden, CV–10–4003608 S.
...108 Conn.App. 1, 13–14, 946 A.2d 1278, cert. denied, 288 Conn. 915, 954 A.2d 183 (2008) ; see also Thergood v. Commissioner of Correction, 109 Conn.App. 710, 952 A.2d 854, cert. denied, 289 Conn. 953, 961 A.2d 422 (2008). “When [a petitioner] challenges a conviction, the question [as to pre......
- State v. Difano, 28472.
- Sosin v. Sosin