Toccaline v. Commissioner of Correction

• Decision Date: 23 February 2010
• Docket Number: No. 30377.,30377.
• Citation: 987 A.2d 1097,119 Conn.App. 510
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Lennard TOCCALINE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

987 A.2d 1097

119 Conn.App. 510

Lennard TOCCALINE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

No. 30377.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued December 10, 2009.

Decided February 23, 2010.

Joseph Visone, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patricia M. Froehlich, state's attorney, and Jo Anne Sulik, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

FLYNN, C.J., and DiPENTIMA and STOUGHTON, Js.

FLYNN, C.J.

In this "habeas on a habeas," the petitioner, Lennard Toccaline, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the petitioner had failed to prove that his prior habeas counsel was ineffective and (2) denied the petitioner a commission to depose the victim. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

In the underlying criminal matter, the state charged the petitioner in a two part information. In the first part of the information, the state charged the petitioner with one count of sexual assault in the first degree, two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree and three counts of risk of injury to a child. In the second part of the information, the state charged the petitioner with being a persistent dangerous felony offender. The jury found the petitioner guilty of one count each of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the fourth degree, and three counts of risk of injury to a child. Following a trial to the court on the second part of the information, the court found the petitioner guilty of being a persistent dangerous felony offender on the basis of his 1982 conviction of sexual assault in the first degree. The court then sentenced the petitioner to forty years incarceration, execution suspended after twenty-five years, with ten years of probation. Our Supreme Court upheld the conviction on direct appeal. See State v. Toccaline, 258 Conn. 542, 783 A.2d 450 (2001).

Following the unsuccessful appeal of his conviction, the petitioner brought his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming actual innocence and that both his criminal trial counsel and his appellate counsel in his direct appeal provided ineffective assistance. The court, Hon. Richard M. Rittenband, judge trial referee, granted the petition on the ground that both trial and appellate counsel were ineffective, entitling the petitioner to a new trial. Toccaline v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn.App. 792, 797, 837 A.2d 849, cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 413, cert. denied sub nom. Toccaline v. Lantz, 543 U.S. 854, 125 S.Ct. 301, 160 L.Ed.2d 90 (2004). The respondent, the commissioner of correction, appealed from that judgment, and this court reversed Judge Rittenband's decision and remanded the case with direction to render judgment dismissing the petition. Id., at 820, 837 A.2d 849. The petitioner thereafter brought another petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his prior habeas counsel was ineffective. Following a two day habeas trial, the court, Schuman, J., rendered judgment denying the petition.¹ It then granted the petitioner's request for certification to appeal. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he had failed to prove that his prior habeas counsel was ineffective and that the court acted improperly in denying him a commission to depose the victim in the underlying criminal matter. We will consider each claim in turn.

"The habeas court is afforded broad discretion in making its factual findings, and those findings will not be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous.... The application of the habeas court's factual findings to the pertinent legal standard, however, presents a mixed question of law and fact, which is subject to plenary review....

"A criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to adequate and effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of criminal proceedings.... This right arises under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution.... As enunciated in Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), our Supreme Court] has stated: It is axiomatic that the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel.... A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel consists of two components: a performance prong and a prejudice prong. To satisfy the performance prong ... the petitioner must demonstrate that his attorney's representation was not reasonably competent or within the range of competence displayed by lawyers with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law.... To satisfy the prejudice prong, a claimant must demonstrate that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.... The claim will succeed only if both prongs are satisfied.... [A] reviewing court can find against a petitioner on either ground, whichever is easier." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 830, 834-35, 970 A.2d 721 (2009).

I

The petitioner first claims that the court improperly concluded that he had failed to prove that his prior habeas counsel had provided ineffective assistance. He argues that his prior habeas counsel was ineffective because he failed to challenge the effectiveness of the petitioner's trial counsel for failing to move for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered postverdict alibi evidence. The respondent argues that the court properly rejected this claim on the ground that trial counsel could not have been ineffective for failing to file a motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered postverdict evidence because the trial court has no authority to hear such a motion at the time of the criminal trial. We agree with the respondent.

As we recently explained in State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn.App. 238, 260-61, 941 A.2d 989, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903, 947 A.2d 343 (2008), "the trial court lack[s] the authority to consider [a] defendant's [postverdict] motion for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. It is well established that to obtain a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, a defendant must bring a petition under Practice Book § 42-55.... Practice Book § 42-55 provides that [a] request for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence shall be called a petition for a new trial and shall be brought in accordance with General Statutes § 52-270.... A petition for a new trial properly is instituted by a writ and complaint served on the adverse party; although such an action is collateral to the action in which a new trial is sought, it is by its nature a distinct proceeding.... [A] different standard of review applies in these two separate procedures for seeking a new trial. To obtain a new trial through a [Practice Book § 42-55] petition, a defendant must overcome a strict standard including a requirement that the newly discovered evidence be likely to produce a different result in a new trial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

The petitioner argues that his trial counsel should have moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered postverdict alibi evidence and that his prior habeas counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this argument in the petitioner's previous habeas petition. He further argues that the habeas court improperly rejected this claim. In considering the petitioner's claim, the habeas court explained that at the time of a criminal trial, "a motion for a new trial [is] not a proper pleading" because a claim of this nature must be brought via a petition for a new trial. The petitioner argues that the court's distinction between the filing of a motion for a new trial and the filing of a petition for a new trial exalts form over substance because "[t]he name you put on the pleading is irrelevant." Accordingly, he argues, that the court improperly rejected the claim. We disagree.

Although the petitioner generally is correct in arguing that the name one places on a pleading "is irrelevant," it is not truly the name of the pleading that is relevant or irrelevant here; rather, it would be the procedure employed that would divest the court of the authority to consider the pleading. "[R]ecently, we reiterated the proper method to request a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. There is a significant...