Perez v. Commissioner of Correction ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • ***********************************************
    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
    ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
    lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was
    released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
    ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions
    and petitions for certification is the “officially released”
    date appearing in the opinion.
    All opinions are subject to modification and technical
    correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut
    Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of
    discrepancies between the advance release version of an
    opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut
    Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
    or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to
    be considered authoritative.
    The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the
    opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and
    bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the
    Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not
    be reproduced and distributed without the express written
    permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
    tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
    ***********************************************
    LUIS PEREZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 41160)
    Prescott, Bright and Devlin, Js.
    Syllabus
    The petitioner, who previously had been convicted on a guilty plea of two
    counts of murder and one count of assault in the first degree, sought
    a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, ineffective assistance of
    trial counsel. During the trial of the present case, the petitioner and
    A, the petitioner’s grandmother, both testified that they met with the
    petitioner’s trial counsel, who threatened the petitioner that A and the
    petitioner’s cousin would go to prison if he did not plead guilty. The
    habeas court rendered judgment denying the amended habeas petition
    and, thereafter, denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the
    petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court did not
    abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal;
    the petitioner’s claims essentially challenged the determination of the
    credibility of witnesses by the habeas court, which is the sole arbiter
    of witness credibility and expressly found that the testimony of the
    petitioner and A, alleging that the petitioner had been coerced into
    pleading guilty, was not credible, that was the only evidence offered to
    support the petitioner’s claims that his plea had been coerced and that
    his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and the credibility of
    trial testimony is not debatable among jurists of reason.
    Argued September 13—officially released November 5, 2019
    Procedural History
    Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
    brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of
    Hartford and tried to the court, Sferrazza, J.; judgment
    denying the petition; thereafter, the court denied the
    petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner
    appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
    Mark M. Rembish, assigned counsel, for the appel-
    lant (petitioner).
    Kathryn W. Bare, assistant state’s attorney, with
    whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state’s attor-
    ney, and Emily Trudeau, assistant state’s attorney, for
    the appellee (respondent).
    Opinion
    PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Luis Perez, appeals
    following the denial of his petition for certification to
    appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying
    his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the
    petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its
    discretion by denying his petition for certification to
    appeal, (2) improperly concluded that his trial counsel
    did not provide ineffective assistance, and (3) improp-
    erly concluded that his plea was not coerced or involun-
    tary. We disagree and dismiss the appeal.
    The record discloses the following facts and proce-
    dural history. The petitioner was charged in a substitute
    information with capital felony and related charges. A
    death qualified jury had been selected and trial was
    scheduled to begin on May 8, 2006. On May 5, 2006, the
    petitioner pleaded guilty to two counts of murder and
    one count of assault in the first degree. Subsequently,
    on July 21, 2006, the court sentenced the petitioner to
    sixty years of imprisonment.
    On December 5, 2014, the petitioner filed his petition
    for writ of habeas corpus. His amended petition, submit-
    ted on May 31, 2017, alleged that his trial counsel, Attor-
    neys Barry Butler and Miles Gerety, provided ineffective
    assistance of counsel in that they threatened him and
    coerced his guilty plea in violation of his right to due
    process of law. The habeas court, Sferrazza, J., con-
    ducted a trial on November 9, 2017, during which it
    heard testimony from the petitioner; his grandmother,
    Ana Hernandez; Butler; and Gerety. The only evidence
    offered by the petitioner in support of his claim was
    his testimony and the testimony of Hernandez. The testi-
    mony indicated that, at some point prior to the petition-
    er’s guilty plea, Hernandez and the petitioner’s cousin
    were arrested for tampering with a witness in the peti-
    tioner’s case. The petitioner and Hernandez both testi-
    fied that they then met with Butler and Gerety on May 4,
    2006, and, during that meeting, the attorneys threatened
    the petitioner that Hernandez and the petitioner’s
    cousin would go to prison if he did not plead guilty.
    Butler and Gerety testified that they never used threats
    of imprisonment for the petitioner’s relatives to coerce
    his guilty plea. Butler recalled that the petitioner already
    had decided to plead guilty by the time of the meeting,
    but had wanted to consult Hernandez before entering
    his plea and requested the May 4, 2006 meeting. Both
    attorneys further explained that they accommodated
    this request, hoping that Hernandez’ presence would
    ease the petitioner’s mind and ‘‘help him make his deci-
    sions rationally . . . .’’
    Following the habeas trial, the court issued a written
    memorandum of decision. It found that the testimony
    of Butler and Gerety was credible, while the testimony
    of the petitioner and Hernandez was not credible. Con-
    sequently, the court determined that the petitioner had
    failed to establish either of the claims raised in his
    petition. The court thereafter denied the amended peti-
    tion for a writ of habeas corpus and the petitioner’s
    request for certification to appeal. This appeal
    followed.
    ‘‘When the habeas court denies certification to
    appeal, a petitioner faces a formidable challenge, as we
    will not consider the merits of a habeas appeal unless
    the petitioner establishes that the denial of certification
    to appeal amounts to an abuse of discretion.’’ Jefferson
    v. Commissioner of Correction, 
    144 Conn. App. 767
    ,
    772, 
    73 A.3d 840
    (2013), cert. denied, 
    310 Conn. 929
    , 
    78 A.3d 856
    (2013). An abuse of discretion exists only when
    the petitioner can show ‘‘that the issues are debatable
    among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the
    issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are
    adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed fur-
    ther.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) Simms v. Warden, 
    230 Conn. 608
    , 616, 
    646 A.2d 126
    (1994). ‘‘[For this task] we necessarily must
    consider the merits of the petitioner’s underlying claims
    to determine whether the habeas court reasonably
    determined that the petitioner’s appeal was frivolous.’’
    Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 
    284 Conn. 433
    ,
    449, 
    936 A.2d 611
    (2007).
    On determinations of witness credibility, ‘‘[t]he
    habeas judge, as the trier of facts, is the sole arbiter of
    the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given
    to their testimony. . . . Appellate courts do not sec-
    ond-guess the trier of fact with respect to credibility.’’
    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
    Necaise v. Commissioner of Correction, 
    112 Conn. App. 817
    , 825–26, 
    964 A.2d 562
    , cert. denied, 
    292 Conn. 911
    ,
    
    973 A.2d 660
    (2009). Accordingly, ‘‘[t]he issue of credi-
    bility is not debatable among jurists of reason’’ and,
    thus, cannot be used to overturn the decision of a
    habeas court. Washington v. Commissioner of Correc-
    tion, 
    166 Conn. App. 331
    , 344–45, 
    141 A.3d 956
    , cert.
    denied, 
    323 Conn. 912
    , 
    149 A.3d 981
    (2016).
    The petitioner’s claims essentially challenge the
    habeas court’s determination of the credibility of the
    witnesses. The habeas court expressly found that the
    testimony of the petitioner and Hernandez, alleging that
    the petitioner was coerced into pleading guilty, was not
    credible. This was the only evidence offered to support
    the petitioner’s claims that his plea was coerced and
    that his trial counsel were ineffective. Because the
    habeas court is the sole arbiter of witness credibility
    and the credibility of trial testimony is not debatable
    among jurists of reason, we cannot conclude that the
    habeas court abused its discretion by denying the peti-
    tion for certification to appeal. Washington v. Commis-
    sioner of 
    Correction, supra
    , 
    166 Conn. App. 344
    –45;
    Necaise v. Commissioner of 
    Correction, supra
    , 
    112 Conn. App. 825
    –26.
    The appeal is dismissed.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: AC41160

Filed Date: 11/5/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/4/2019