Maia v. Commissioner of Correction
Citations
- 347 Conn. 449
Syllabus
The petitioner, who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty years of incarceration, the maximum sentence for that crime, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his trial counsel, M, had rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to advise the petitioner to accept the trial court's plea offer of forty-five years of incarceration in exchange for his guilty plea. At the petitioner's habeas trial, M testified that he believed that he had advised the petitioner, in light of the plea offer, about the strength of the state's case, the weak- nesses of his defenses, statements from witnesses on which the state was going to rely at trial, the elements of the charged crime, the petitioner's chances of succeeding at trial and his sentencing exposure if he were to proceed to trial. M also testified that he would have told the petitioner that his chances of succeeding at trial were not good given M's evaluation of the evidence. In addition, M testified that he never advised clients to accept or reject a plea offer but allowed them to decide for themselves. On the other hand, the petitioner testified at the habeas trial that M had informed him of the forty-five year offer but never advised him that it was in his best interest to accept the offer. The petitioner claimed that he would have accepted the offer had M advised him to do so. The habeas court granted the habeas petition, concluding that, although M had adequately advised the petitioner about the strength of the state's 450 AUGUST, 2023 347 Conn. 449 Maia v. Commissioner of Correction case, the weaknesses of his case, his chances of succeeding at trial, and his sentencing exposure, M's performance was deficient and the petitioner was prejudiced thereby because M had failed to advise the petitioner to accept the court's plea offer and, if he had done so, the petitioner would have accepted the offer. The court reasoned that it was very unlikely that the petitioner would have prevaile
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- affirming grant of summary judgment for defendant and finding no abuse of discretion in denying Rule 56(f
- “According to the Supreme Court, a refusal to provide information to which one is entitled under FACA constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to establish Article III standing.”
- \[A] refusal to provide information to which one is entitled under FACA constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to establish Article III standing.\
- “Byrd [must] show what facts he intended to discover that would create a triable issue . . . .”
- \It is well settled that conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data will not create a triable issue of fact.\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- “[A] refusal to provide information to which one is entitled under FACA constitutes a cognizable injury sufficient to establish Article III standing.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.