· 3/5/2024

Donald G. v. Commissoner of Correction

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of several crimes in connection with two incidents in which he sexually assaulted the minor victim, C, sought a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed that K, his appellate counsel, had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise claims of prosecu- torial impropriety and a violation of Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) that resulted from the state's failure to disclose to the defense a complete copy of notes made by a police detective, Y, who had interviewed the petitioner about C's allegations. During the petitioner's criminal trial, C testified that she, her friend, and her sister had gone to the petitioner's workplace to help him paint the interior of the building. C went upstairs to paint an office while her friend and her sister remained downstairs. The petitioner entered the office and sexually assaulted C. Y testified on direct examination that the petitioner had told him that two girls, in addition to C, helped him paint that day. Defense counsel then cross- examined Y, and, during a recess, the prosecutor provided defense counsel with an incomplete copy of Y's notes. Y then admitted on cross- examination that the notes were inconsistent with his initial testimony about the number of girls present that day. Subsequent to his criminal trial, the petitioner obtained a complete copy of Y's notes through the Freedom of Information Act (§ 1-200 et seq.). The habeas court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held: 1. The petitioner's claim that K rendered ineffective assistance was unavail- ing, as the petitioner could not establish that he was prejudiced by K's failure on direct appeal to raise claims of prosecutorial impropriety and a violation of Brady: a. Notwithstanding the habeas court's erroneous determination that the petitioner's habeas petition did not allege claims of ineffective assistance concerning the Brady claim and

Judges: Bright; Alvord; DiPentima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.