DocketNumber: No. CV 00-0444408
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 3610
Judges: DOWNEY, JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE.
Filed Date: 3/27/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Petitioner was the defendant in a case entitled State ofConnecticut v. Audley Watson, docket number CR97-0157718-S in the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford. On May 27, 1998, the Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to one count of Murder in violation of General Statutes, §
On April 22, 1999, the Petitioner filed his petition for writ of habeas corpus. A hearing on the petition, as subsequently amended, was held on January 16, 2002.
Pretrial negotiation implicating the decision of whether to plead guilty is a critical stage in criminal proceedings. Colson v. Smith,
A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. State v.Silva,
As a result of plea negotiations, there was an agreed-upon recommendation by the state that, in exchange for his plea of guilty, the petitioner receive the mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years to CT Page 3612 serve.
As to the screwdriver, the petitioner claims there was a screwdriver found under the victim's body; that, had it been tested for the presence of blood, it would have helped the petitioner to show that the petitioner acted in self defense; that the petitioner had asked trial counsel to have the screwdriver tested and was told, "Don't worry about it." It should be noted that at no time in the course of his habeas testimony did the petitioner testify that at the time of the stabbing that the victim brandished a screwdriver, that the victim attacked him or wounded him with a screwdriver; rather, the petitioner testified merely that such testing would "definitely show that the victim was in possession of a weapon and it would have shown blood or at least a subsequent sample to prove that he attacked me." (Transcript, January 16, 2002 hearing, pp. 5, 6). At the habeas hearing, trial counsel, Isko, testified, "There were a lot of problems with the screwdriver." (Transcript, January 16, 2002 hearing, p. 29). Isko stated: "So my experience because of how the screwdriver was found and how it was described, that getting it tested would not reveal any evidence to help us but reveal evidence that would harm us. There was no useful purpose in having it tested." (Transcript January 16, 2002 hearing, p. 29). Isko went on to testify that at the hearing in probable cause witness testimony "decimated" the petitioner's self defense claim. The Court finds that in declining to have the screwdriver in question tested, trial counsel was not ineffective, but reasonably exercised his professional judgment. Further, the petitioner has failed to establish that a testing of the said screwdriver would have produced evidence such that the petitioner would have elected to proceed to trial, and has failed to establish that the test results would have caused defense counsel to change his recommendation that the petitioner accept the State's offer.
The petitioner's second claim of ineffective assistance is that trial counsel advised him that although the agreement was that he would be sentenced to twenty five years to serve, he could expect to receive "good time" or be paroled, or both, resulting in less than twenty-five years CT Page 3613 imprisonment. (Transcript, January 16, 2002 hearing, p. 7). Had he known, the petitioner avers, that he would have to serve twenty-five years, "day for day," he would have elected to proceed to trial. The petitioner claims that although he understood his sentence was to be for twenty-five years, he was unaware this was a mandatory minimum sentence with no "good time" credit or parole. The Court is not persuaded. Trial counsel, an experienced criminal defense lawyer, testified credibly that he never told the petitioner that he would do less than twenty-five years (Transcript, January 16, 2002 hearing, pp. 32, 33). Trial counsel stressed that in deciding whether to accept the state's offer, the issue for the petitioner was to accept the twenty-five years or go to trial, where, if convicted of murder, he would have an exposure of sixty years (Transcript, January 16, 2002 hearing, p. 31). Further, at the time of plea, the court, in its canvass asked the petitioner, "Do you understand that the agreement here based on your plea of guilty to the charge of murder is for that minimum sentence, which cannot be suspended, which is twenty-five years. Do you understand that?" To which the petitioner replied, "Yep." (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, transcript of plea hearing, May 21, 1998, p. 8). The Court finds that the petitioner has failed to establish, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that his trial counsel advised him that he would serve less than twenty-five years if the petitioner accepted the state's offer, and has failed to establish that, but for his belief he would serve less than twenty-five years petitioner would have elected to proceed to trial.
By the Court,
Downey, J.T.R.