Williams v. Commissioner of Correction

• Decision Date: 23 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 14076,14076
• Citation: 677 A.2d 1,41 Conn.App. 515
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: Floyd WILLIAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

Page 1

677 A.2d 1

41 Conn.App. 515

Floyd WILLIAMS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

No. 14076.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Jan. 17, 1996.

Decided May 28, 1996.

Certification Granted Limited to the Following Issue July 23, 1996.

[41 Conn.App. 516] James A. Shanley, Jr., Special Public Defender, for appellant (petitioner).

Frederick W. Fawcett, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Attorney, and Gerard Eisenman, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee (respondent).

Before DUPONT, C.J., and EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL and SPEAR, JJ.

DUPONT, Chief Judge.

The petitioner, Floyd Williams, appeals from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner was convicted of one count of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c. The conviction was upheld. State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385, 599 A.2d 1053 (1991). The petitioner subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming (1) that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and (2) that he is factually innocent. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the habeas court rejected both of the petitioner's claims and certified its decision for review by this court. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

A thorough review of the evidence produced at the petitioner's habeas hearing, coupled with relevant facts from the petitioner's criminal trial, is necessary to adjudicate properly the issues presented in this appeal. In the petitioner's appeal from the judgment rendered in the criminal trial, our Supreme Court stated that the jury could have found reasonably the facts that follow.

"On August 28, 1989, in the early hours of the morning, the victim, Orville Grant, and Mervin Needham were walking on Sixth Street in Bridgeport when they were approached by the [petitioner] and two other men. The [petitioner] and his two companions all were armed with guns. The [petitioner] forced the victim and Needham to lie on the ground while he rifled Needham's pockets for what turned out to be $5 in cash. The [petitioner] then ordered both men into a nearby yard and again forced them to lie down. After some discussion, all three assailants began shooting. As a result of this assault, Grant died of a gunshot wound to the head.

"Just prior to trial, the state filed an amended long form information charging the defendant in a seven count information with violations of the following General Statutes: (1) felony murder, General Statutes § 53a-54c; (2) murder, General Statutes § 53a-54a(a); (3) attempted murder, General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-54a(a); (4) robbery in the first degree, General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(2); (5) attempted assault in the first degree, General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-59(a)(1); (6) assault in the second degree, General Statutes § 53a-60(a)(2); and (7) carrying a pistol without a permit, General Statutes § 29-35. On August 21, 1990, a jury found the defendant guilty of the single count of felony murder. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a term of sixty years imprisonment." Id., at 387-88, 599 A.2d 1053. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. Id., at 400, 599 A.2d 1053.

The petitioner brought this habeas corpus action by way of an amended petition in two counts. In the first count, the petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. ¹ In the second count, the petitioner

alleged that he was factually innocent and that he suffered a miscarriage of justice [41 Conn.App. 518] because exculpatory testimony from available witnesses was never presented during his criminal trial.

I INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

In the first count, the petitioner claimed that his trial counsel, Attorney Arnaldo E. Granados, provided ineffective assistance at the petitioner's criminal trial by (1) failing to advise the petitioner as to the potential merits of accepting a plea offer to a substituted charge of manslaughter in the first degree; (2) inadequately investigating and cross-examining Needham; (3) failing to call Ulysses Smith as a defense witness; (4) failing to pursue adequately a motion for a bill of particulars that had been filed previously; (5) inadequately investigating and failing to present the testimony of David Womack and Joseph Aranjo as defense witnesses.

The habeas court evaluated the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). ² Under Strickland, the petitioner must show that (1) defense counsel's performance was not reasonably competent or within the range of competence expected of attorneys with ordinary training and skill in criminal law; id., at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. at 2064-65; and (2) but for counsel's substandard performance, there is a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. Id., at 694, 104 S.Ct. at 2068. The habeas court concluded that none of the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel met the conditions set forth in Strickland.

On appeal, the petitioner challenges the habeas court's conclusion that the petitioner failed to show that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to present the exculpatory testimony of Aranjo at the criminal trial. The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly evaluated the credibility of Aranjo in dismissing that claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The habeas court focused on the prejudice component of the Strickland standard to dispose of the claim that Granados, the petitioner's attorney, provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to present the exculpatory testimony of Aranjo at the criminal trial. A habeas court deciding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim need not address the question of counsel's performance, if the claim may be disposed of on the ground of an insufficient showing of prejudice. Pelletier v. Warden, 32 Conn.App. 38, 46, 627 A.2d 1363, cert. denied, 227 Conn. 920, 632 A.2d 694 (1993).

A review of the testimonies provided at the habeas hearing by the petitioner, Granados, and Aranjo is necessary to resolve this claim. The petitioner testified that he informed Granados that "[the petitioner] had seen [Aranjo] [the] night [of the shooting] and that [Aranjo] might know more information." The petitioner also testified that his sister told Granados that Aranjo "had seen something." The petitioner stated that it was his understanding from speaking to Granados, that Granados had spoken with Aranjo and that he would be called as a witness at the criminal trial.

Granados testified that he represented the petitioner from December, 1989, until the petitioner's sentencing. Granados' case file for the petitioner's criminal case was subpoenaed through the office of the chief public defender. Granados identified the case file, but could not be certain that it was the complete file. Granados testified that he recognized a document contained in the case file entitled "investigation request" and admitted Aranjo testified at the habeas hearing that he was walking along Sixth Street in Bridgeport to visit his girlfriend, Amy Pettway, just prior to the shooting. As Aranjo approached her residence, he observed a group of people consisting of Grant, Ulysses Smith, Raymond Tucker, and a fourth person that Aranjo could not identify gathered across the street. Aranjo also observed the petitioner walking along Sixth Street toward him on the same side of the street. Aranjo heard someone from the group call to the petitioner and saw the petitioner cross Sixth Street to join the group. Aranjo then saw the petitioner throw up his arms and walk away from the group. About thirty seconds later, Aranjo saw Smith and Tucker pull guns and start shooting at Grant and the unidentified person. Aranjo dove for cover behind some bushes. Aranjo saw the unidentified person and Grant start to run, and then saw Grant fall about "five cars down or six cars down" from where the group was assembled at the time when Aranjo first observed the group. After the shooting stopped, Aranjo entered Pettway's residence and told her that "there were some guys out there shooting." Later that evening, Aranjo looked out of the window of Pettway's residence and observed the police investigating the scene. Aranjo testified that he never reported what he observed to the police because he "really didn't want to be involved" because "it leads to trouble." After Aranjo discovered that the petitioner was arrested, Aranjo still did not report the shooting to the police and instead, went to the petitioner's sister and informed her about the shooting.

                [41 Conn.App. 520]  that he prepared that request on January 25, 1990.  The investigation request reads:  "Please interview and take statement from Joseph Aranjo, Jr. at 951 Aranistan Avenue, 3rd floor, Bridgeport, Connecticut.  Telephone (203) 367-6295.  Our client indicates that this man is an eyewitness to the murder and that Ulysses Smith was the person who committed the crime and not [the petitioner]."  Attached to the investigation request was a handwritten document that reads:  "Michael call him over the weekend--Joseph Aranjo, Jr.  Come to the office Monday for statement.  Re:  Floyd Williams."   Granados testified that that document "seems to be a note to one of the investigators, but I don't know who made the note."   Granados admitted that he had obtained Aranjo's name approximately seven months prior to the start of the criminal trial.  Granados, however, did not recall issuing a subpoena for Aranjo to testify and could not recollect the reason why he did not call Aranjo as a witness at the criminal trial
                

The habeas court concluded that the petitioner "failed to prove that there exists a...