Freitag v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 208 Conn. App. 635

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted, on pleas of guilty, of the crimes of murder and assault in the first degree, appealed to this court from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claimed that O, the attorney who represented him during the plea proceeding, rendered ineffective assistance, as did P, the attorney who represented him during the sentencing proceeding. The petitioner alleged that O failed to properly advise him regarding potential defenses and made misrepresentations to him about the willing- ness of a codefendant, B, to testify at the petitioner's criminal trial. The petitioner further alleged that P failed to present adequate mitigation evidence at the sentencing proceeding and failed to file a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 39-27 (4)), on the basis of O's ineffective assistance. The petitioner testified at the habeas trial that O had met with and told him and his parents on the day of the plea proceeding that he had been informed by B's counsel that B was not willing to testify at the petitioner's criminal trial. The petitioner further testified that, until that meeting, he was under the impression that B was going to testify. The petitioner then appeared before the trial court for the plea proceeding and initially rejected a plea offer. The petitioner then changed his mind during the court's canvass of him and entered his guilty pleas, as it was his under- standing that this was his final opportunity to accept the plea offer. Prior to the sentencing proceeding, however, the petitioner learned from his family that B was willing to testify. The habeas court, in determining that O did not render deficient performance, rejected the petitioner's claim that O incorrectly advised him about whether B was willing to testify. The court made an implicit factual finding that O had told the petitioner it was not likely that B would testify and an ex