Tutson v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 06 September 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 37939.,37939. |
Citation | 144 A.3d 519,168 Conn.App. 108 |
Parties | Trendel TUTSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Michael D. Day, with whom, on the brief, was John J. Duguay, for the appellant (petitioner).
Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and David M. Carlucci, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
DiPENTIMA, C.J., and SHELDON and BEAR, Js.
The petitioner, Trendel Tutson, appeals from the judgment of the second habeas court, Oliver, J., denying his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the second habeas court erred by (1) concluding that there was no reasonable probability that the result of the habeas appeal from the first habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal would have been different and (2) declining to presume that the petitioner was prejudiced by his prior habeas appellate counsel's failures to raise an issue on his petition for certification to appeal from the first habeas court's ruling. We affirm the judgment of the second habeas court.
The petitioner was charged with attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–49 and 53a–54a, and assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–59 (a)(5), for his role in a shooting that took place between 1 and 1:30 p.m. on March 26, 2001, in Hartford. In order to resolve the issues in this appeal, we revisit relevant facts concerning the petitioner's alibi witnesses who testified at his trial as set forth in State v. Tutson, 278 Conn. 715, 899 A.2d 598 (2006). Approximately eight months before the petitioner's trial commenced, “[o]n August 6, 2001, the [petitioner's trial counsel] sent a letter to the state ... identifying Julia Thomas (Julia) as the only alibi witness. The letter contained no information, however, regarding the [petitioner's] whereabouts at the time the crime was committed. The [petitioner's trial counsel] also provided the state with a three page investigative report dated April 19, 2001. The report was based on a personal interview with Julia and a telephone interview with her son, Terrell Thomas (Terrell). Although the report referred to the [petitioner's] ‘girlfriend’ and listed the name of Rooty [Thomas (Rooty) ] as a subject to be interviewed, it did not name Rooty as a prospective witness and did not identify her as the [petitioner's] girlfriend.
“The trial commenced on March 11, 2002. The state alleged that the [petitioner] was guilty as a principal or an accessory of criminal attempt to commit murder and assault in the first degree. In the bill of particulars ... the state specifically alleged that, ‘[o]n [March 26, 2001], at approximately 1:30 p.m., the [petitioner] was the operator of a 1997 white Dodge Neon proceeding east on Bond Street’ and that ‘[Philip] Washington was his front seat passenger in the ... Neon.’ The state further alleged that the [petitioner] had engaged in a car chase with [Ernesto] Molina, who was driving a red Volkswagen Jetta carrying two other passengers, [Jorge Pagan and one other individual], and had fired a shot at the Jetta, or had assisted Washington in shooting at the Jetta, thereby causing physical injury to Molina.1 The [petitioner], relying on theories of misidentification and alibi, attempted to convince the jury that the two eyewitnesses to the shooting [Molina and Pagan] incorrectly had identified him as the perpetrator because, at the relevant time, he was in another location and thus could not have committed the alleged offenses.
“As the state was nearing the end of its case-in-chief, [the petitioner's trial counsel] represented to the court, outside the presence of the jury, that she had given the state the names of Julia and her sons, Terrell and Tyrone Thomas (Tyrone), as alibi witnesses. An extended discussion followed as to whether the [petitioner] had provided the state with adequate notice to admit the proposed alibi testimony....
“During this discussion, [the petitioner's trial counsel] declared that the [petitioner's] ‘strongest’ alibi witness was Rooty. When the state protested that it had not been given notice that Rooty would testify as an alibi witness, [the petitioner's trial counsel] replied that she had included Rooty on the defense witness list, although counsel was having difficulty locating her. Upon further inquiry by the court, [the petitioner's trial counsel] stated that if Rooty could be located and was allowed to appear as an alibi witness, she would testify that she and the [petitioner] went to New Haven following his visit with Terrell to pick up her child or drop off her nephew....
“That same day, prior to the testimony of the state's final witness, the [petitioner's trial counsel] filed the following notice of alibi with the court: ‘[O]n the date of [March 26, 2001] at approximately [1] and 1:20 [p.m.], the [petitioner] ... was at the home of ... Julia ... and Tyrone ... located at 827 Wethersfield Avenue, Hartford....
“ ‘[O]n [March 26, 2001] at approximately 1:20 until [3 or 4 p.m.], the [petitioner] ... was in the company of Terrell ... and Rooty ... (who are not related to each other) [en] route to and from Meriden and New Haven ... where Rooty ... had to pick up her ... child from school.’
“After the state concluded its case-in-chief, [the petitioner's trial counsel] reiterated to the court, outside the presence of the jury, that if Rooty was located and permitted to appear as an alibi witness, she would testify that the [petitioner] left Julia's residence at approximately 1:20 p.m. on the day of the shooting and accompanied her to Meriden and New Haven to pick up her child....
2
“After Rooty returned to the stand, [the petitioner's trial counsel] did not inquire further regarding her activities after she dropped the [petitioner] off at Julia's residence.
(Citation omitted; footnotes altered.) Id., at 721–30, 899 A.2d 598.
On direct appeal, this court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial because it concluded that the trial court had violated the petitioner's right to present a defense. State v. Tutson, 84 Conn.App. 610, 627–28, 854 A.2d 794 (2004). Our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court with direction to consider additional claims that this court did not resolve. State v. Tutson, supra, 278 Conn. at 751, 899 A.2d 598. Following that remand, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. Tutson, 99 Conn.App. 655, 656, 915 A.2d 344 (2007).
Thereafter, the petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus and was represented by Attorney Rebecca I. Bodner. Count...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Wiblyi v. McDonald's Corp.
-
Abrams v. Comm'r of Corr.
...in the adversarial process that renders the result unreliable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tutson v. Commissioner of Correction , 168 Conn. App. 108, 122, 144 A.3d 519, cert. denied, 323 Conn. 933, 150 A.3d 233 (2016)."The standard of appellate review of habeas corpus proceedings i......
-
Figueroa v. Commissioner, AC 42140
...claim, the petitioner must satisfy both the performance prong and the prejudice prong of Strickland ....’’ Tutson v. Commissioner of Correction , 168 Conn. App. 108, 122, 144 A.3d 519, cert. denied, 323 Conn. 933, 150 A.3d 233 (2016). ‘‘The first part of the Strickland analysis requires the......
-
Tutson v. Comm'r of Corr.
...attorney, in opposition.The petitioner Trendel Tutson's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 168 Conn.App. 108, 144 A.3d 519 (2016), is ...