DocketNumber: No. CV 92 1397 S
Citation Numbers: 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12757
Judges: SFERRAZZA, J.
Filed Date: 12/14/1994
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The petitioner's judgment of conviction was affirmed on appeal, State v. Dixon,
The court finds the following background facts. The charges underlying the judgment of conviction arose from the results of various searches and seizures, with and without warrants, which implicated the petitioner, in conjunction with others, in the CT Page 12758 possession of about seven pounds of cocaine with intent to sell. Pothin, an experienced and highly qualified criminal trial lawyer, was referred to the petitioner by a friend or relative, and, shortly after the petitioner's arrest, Pothin was retained to represent the petitioner. Pothin met with the petitioner several times regarding his case.
Eventually, the prosecutor offered to recommend, in exchange for a guilty plea, a fifteen year sentence with the petitioner retaining his right to argue for a lesser sentence. This type of recommendation is colloquially known as a sentencing "cap. " Pothin discussed this offer with the petitioner on several occasions, and the petitioner ultimately rejected the offer. The petitioner hired an additional lawyer Attorney Onorato, in the hope that Onorato might wrangle a better offer from the prosecutor.
This hope never materialized except to the extent that the court, Damiani, J., indicated a willingness to reduce the fifteen year cap by one year for each $10,000 in fines the petitioner was willing to pay down to a minimum ten year sentence. This judicial indication was reduced to writing by Onorato for the benefit of the petitioner (Petitioner's Exhibit E-2). This written explanation also contained other possible sentencing scenarios which were outside of the judicially indicated disposition. All scenarios were thoroughly discussed with the petitioner by Pothin and Onorato. Again, the petitioner rejected these possible dispositions.
Pothin felt that the petitioner had viable search and seizure issues to raise, and he filed a motion to suppress introduction of the seized items. A lengthy evidentiary hearing was held, and Pothin submitted a thirty-three page brief in support of the motion. The trial court, Gormley, J., denied the motion to suppress. As a result of this denial, Pothin advised the petitioner to forego a full trial and instead enter a conditional nolo contendere plea, under General Statutes §
On December 4, 1989, the trial court, Damiani, J., carefully canvassed and accepted the petitioner's conditional plea (Petitioner's Exhibit A). Sentencing was originally set for January 26, 1990. In the interim, however, the petitioner moved to fire Pothin, and the trial court also construed this motion to be CT Page 12759 a motion for withdrawal of plea. On March 2, 1990, the court, Damiani, J., allowed Pothin to withdraw, appointed a special defender, Attorney Thomas Conroy, to represent the petitioner, but denied withdrawal of the nolo contendere plea (Petitioner's Exhibit B). On March 16, 1990, Damiani sentenced the petitioner as indicated above (Petitioner's Exhibit C).
Our Supreme Court has adopted the two-pronged Strickland test for evaluating ineffective assistance claims; Ostolaza v. Warden,
As noted above, the burden of proof in a habeas corpus matter is on the petitioner, and the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, Quintana v. Warden,
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed.
Sferrazza, J.