James P. v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 224 Conn. App. 636

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of various crimes pursuant to a plea agreement reached in accordance with State v. Garvin (242 Conn. 296), sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. In accordance with the Garvin agree- ment, the trial court agreed to a specific sentence for the petitioner as long as the petitioner, inter alia, was not arrested for any offense for which a court made a finding of probable cause while awaiting sentenc- ing. If there was a violation of the agreement, the petitioner would no longer be entitled to the agreed upon sentence and would face a longer period of incarceration. Before the petitioner was sentenced, he was arrested on subsequent charges. The sentencing court found a Garvin violation as a result and sentenced him accordingly. Before the habeas court, the petitioner alleged that his trial counsel performed deficiently by improperly advising him with respect to whether the sentencing court could deviate from the plea agreement, providing him with unrealistic expectations as to the sentence he would face, and that he was preju- diced by this advice because he would not have accepted the plea deal but for his counsel's deficient performance. After a trial, the habeas court rendered judgment denying the petition, and the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court properly denied the operative petition as to the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of his trial counsel: the petitioner failed to prove that he was prejudiced by any alleged deficient performance of his trial counsel in advising him of the remote possibility that the trial court could deviate from the plea agreement at the time of sentencing, as the trial court's swift response when this notion was raised by trial counsel made it clear that there was no real possibility of that outcome, and the petitioner's bald assertion in his appellate brief that there