DocketNumber: No. 358300
Citation Numbers: 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 14521
Judges: SULLIVAN, JUDGE. CT Page 14522
Filed Date: 12/21/1995
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
The underlying crimes were committed on June 30, 1993 when the victim of the crime was awaken by his wife to be told something was in the kitchen. The victim got out of bed and went to the kitchen and found no one. However, as the victim was going back toward his bedroom he saw someone outside of the window and they said something about "Joe". The victim's stepson is named "Joe". The victim thought it was his stepson outside, so he went to open the house door. As he took the lock off of the door the petitioner pushed the door and the victim fell backwards into the sink. There was a knife there and the victim grabbed it. The petitioner came at him with a crowbar and hit him with it twice. The victim then stabbed the petitioner and yelled for his son to call the police. The police arrived and had the petitioner sent to the hospital.
The petitioner said he did not remember the above incident because he was high on drugs. He testified he had been using heroin and crack for years and at this time in June 1993 he was living in the streets and using 10 vials of crack a day. He stated he remembered smoking crack and shooting heroin in front of a big church and then he woke up in a hospital with a stab wound in his chest.
At one point the State's Attorney offered the petitioner a sentence of five years to serve in return for a guilty plea. The petitioner refused the offer and it was withdrawn. Subsequently another offer of eight years in return for a guilty plea was made to the petitioner. This too was refused by him. The petitioner testified he refused the plea offers because he did not remember committing the crimes with which he was charged. The plaintiff thought he probably went to the victim's house to get high and while there got into an argument with someone and then was CT Page 14523 stabbed. The petitioner testified that his attorney explained some things to him but he does not think he understood them. He did testify that his attorney did state to him what the victim would testify to during his trial. However the petitioner continued to believe that the victim would testify to something other than burglary. Then the petitioner stated he had no opportunity before trial to understand what the victim would say when he testified at trial. The petitioner stated the only thing he knew about the victim's statement was what his attorney told him.
Attorney Demirjian testified that he represented the petitioner when he plead guilty as aforesaid. He testified he absolutely told the petitioner what evidence the state had. He said he got the police report after the petitioner's arraignment and that he read it to the petitioner. Attorney DeMirjian stated the petitioner would not accept the five year sentence offer, because it was a lot of time to serve and he had no recollection of the crimes. Attorney DeMirjian also stated he had no recollection of an eight year sentence being offered to the petitioner.
Attorney DeMirjian testified that the petitioner told him that he had word that the victim was back in Puerto Rico and would not testify at his trial. Prior to trial Attorney DeMirjian and his investigator went to the victim's apartment where they met the victim's son who now lived in a different apartment. He also met the victim whom the State's Attorney's office had flown to Connecticut from Puerto Rico for the trial. Attorney DeMirjian testified he told the petitioner that the victim was in Connecticut and he further told him what he would testify to concerning the crimes. He said the petitioner told him he would not believe it until he hears it. After the victim and another witness testified the court adjourned for the day. The next day the petitioner told Attorney DeMirjian he wanted to plead guilty. The petitioner testified that during his trial he came to understand he was not going to win and that is why he changed his plea to guilty on each charge.
The Connecticut Supreme Court has adopted the two prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington,
In Hill v. Lockhart, supra,
The Hill court also stated that the petitioner must show that such a decision to plead not guilty would have been based on the likelihood that the introduction of the evidence or the defense CT Page 14525 that was not identified because of ineffective assistance of counsel would have been successful at trial. Id.
To satisfy the Hill standard, a defendant must prove that, but for defense counsel's deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that he would have pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial on the basis of the likelihood that his defenses would succeed in providing a more favorable outcome. Id.157 — Footnote 10.
After hearing the evidence the court finds that the testimony of Attorney DeMirjian was very credible. He did all anyone could expect an attorney to do in this case. He kept his client, the petitioner, well advised at all stages of the proceedings. He did an investigation into the facts and he was available to the petitioner. In this matter the court is of the opinion that the petitioner did not believe that the victim would be available to testify. The petitioner was obviously incorrect on this point.
After hearing the evidence the court finds that the petitioner did not sustain his burden of proof on either prong of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra as to any of the allegations in his Amended Petition dated April 7, 1995.
For the above reasons the petitioner's habeas corpus petition is denied.
William J. Sullivan, Judge