Skip to main content
· 2/23/2021

Godfrey v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

  • 202 Conn. App. 684

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had pleaded guilty to murder, appealed to this court from the judgment of the habeas court, which denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that his guilty plea should be vacated pursuant to the doctrine of frustration of purpose because the subsequent abolishment of the death penalty in Connecticut frustrated his principal purpose in accepting the plea agreement, namely, to avoid the death penalty. The relief he sought was a judgment vacating the original plea agreement and the remand of his case for resentencing in accordance with a plea that would have been negotiated had the death penalty been unavailable. The habeas court, after a trial at which both of the petitioner's trial counsel testified, concluded that the peti- tioner failed to prove that his principal purpose for agreeing to enter a guilty plea was substantially frustrated by the subsequent abolition of the death penalty and that he had assumed the risk that the death penalty subsequently might be abolished. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the petitioner cannot prevail on his claim that he was entitled to relief under the frustration of purpose doctrine because, even if this court assumed that the frustration of purpose doctrine applied to plea agreements, by accepting the plea agreement, contract principles dictate that the petitioner assumed the risk that at some point the death penalty could be abolished: the record demonstrated that the terms of the agreement were unambiguous, that the petitioner was fully aware of the consequences of his bargain, and the parties, having been made aware of the potential for future favorable changes to the law, intended for the plea agreement to remain enforce- able notwithstanding any future changes to the law, including the subse- quent abolition of the death penalty in Connecticut, which did not change the petitioner's expectations under the agreement

Judges: Bright; Prescott; Suarez; Js

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.