Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus relief, arguing that his counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to request an increase in bond on two prior charges so that Petitioner could be credited for presentence confinement credit on those charges. The habeas court granted relief, concluding that Petitioner had a Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel for a matter pertaining to presentence confinement. The Supreme Court affirmed on the basis of its conclusion in Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, decided this same day, holding (1) the habeas court properly determined that Petitioner was entitled to the effective assistance of counsel at the plea hearing and sentencing; and (2) the failure of Petitioner's counsel to request an increase in the bond on his first arrest constituted deficient performance and such performance prejudiced Petitioner by exposing him to an additional seventeen days in jail for which he received no credit. View "Huertas v. Comm'r of Corr." on Justia Law

Petitioner was arrested three times for three different offenses and later pleaded guilty to violation of a protective order and threatening in the second degree. Petitioner subsequently filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his counsel was ineffective for, among other things, failing to request that the court credit Petitioner with seventy-three days of presentence confinement credit for one of his first two arrests. The habeas court found that Petitioner met his burden of proving that counsel's performance was deficient and ordered the Commissioner of Correction to credit Petitioner with seventy-three days of presentence confinement credit. The appellate court affirmed, holding (1) Petitioner had a Sixth Amendment right to be represented by counsel at his arraignment; and (2) Petitioner was prejudiced by counsel's representation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court properly ruled that (1) the Sixth Amendment confers a right to the effective assistance of counsel in matters pertaining to credit for presentence confinement; and (2) Petitioner showed deficient performance and prejudice within the meaning of Strickland v. Washington. View "Gonzalez v. Comm'r of Corr." on Justia Law

Petitioner entered guilty pleas, pursuant to the Alford doctrine, to three counts of burglary and one count of larceny and admitted a violation of probation. Petitioner subsequently filed a revised amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The habeas court granted the petition in part, concluding (1) counsel did not act in a constitutionally defective manner in her representation of Petitioner; but (2) counsel had an actual conflict of interest. The appellate court reversed, ruling (1) the habeas court misapplied the Rules of Professional Conduct in determining that counsel was burdened by an actual conflict of interest; and (2) the court improperly determined that a breach of the Rules alone was sufficient to establish a violation of the right to ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Anderson v. Comm'r of Corr." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) any error in the trial court's curtailment defense counsel's cross-examination of a jailhouse informant regarding the maximum sentence the informant faced on pending felony charges at the time he incriminated Defendant was harmless; (2) any error in the trial court's decision to allow testimony from the informant that his parole officer supported his application for a sentence modification was harmless; (3) the trial court properly admitted into evidence testimony regarding Defendant's gang membership; and (4) the prosecutor engaged in prosecutorial impropriety during his cross-examination of Defendant's expert witness and during closing argument, but the improprieties did not deny Defendant of a fair trial. View "State v. Wilson" on Justia Law

After a court trial, Defendant was convicted in two separate cases of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, five counts of risk of injury to a child, and one count of promoting a minor in an obscene performance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) correctly found sufficient evidence to sustain Defendant's conviction for promoting a minor; (2) did not plainly err by admitting into evidence expert opinion evidence as to the fact that Defendant had physically, psychologically, and sexually abused the victim; and (3) did not err in permitting the state to present certain evidence of uncharged misconduct. View "State v. George A." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of several crimes and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of fifty-five years for felony murder, twenty years for first degree robbery, and five years for carrying a pistol without a permit, each to run concurrently. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that felony murder was an unclassified felony subject to a maximum term of imprisonment of twenty-five years. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's sentence was proper because felony murder is not an unclassified felony but, rather, a felony classified as murder and, as such, is punishable by a term of imprisonment of twenty-five years to life. View "State v. Adams" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 21a-278 and possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 21a-277. Because Defendant's convictions were for greater and lesser included offenses arising out of the same transaction, the appellate court held that Defendant's section 21a-277 conviction must be merged with his section 21a-278 conviction and that the sentence for the former, lesser included offense must be vacated. Defendant appealed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that, when a defendant has been convicted of greater and lesser included offenses, the trial court must vacate the conviction for the lesser offense rather than merging the convictions pursuant to State v. Chicano. Remanded. View "State v. Polanco" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and assault in the first degree. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of conviction. Defendant appealed, contending that the appellate court erred in concluding that the trial court's failure to give a Ledbetter instruction, sua sponte, did not present the type of extraordinary circumstance that warranted reversal under the plain error doctrine. Under State v. Ledbetter, trial courts are required to provide a jury instruction regarding the increased risk of misidentification when an eyewitness is not advised that the perpetrator of a crime may or may not be present in the identification procedure in cases in which the identification procedure administrator had failed to provide such a warning. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court properly concluded the failure to give a Ledbetter instruction in this case was not plain error. View "State v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of the sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. 21a-278a(b). Defendant appealed, arguing that criminal liability under section 21a-278a(b) did not attach in his case because the drug transaction began within 1500 feet of a school but culminated elsewhere. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to support Defendant's conviction because section 21a-278a(b) required the state to prove that Defendant had effected a delivery of drugs within 1500 of the school, and the state had failed to prove that the physical transfer occurred within that 1500 foot zone. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the appellate court construed the statutory definition of sale of a controlled substance under Conn. Gen. Stat. 21a-240(50) too narrowly, and therefore, there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction in this case; and (2) Defendant waived his claim that the trial court improperly instructed the jury regarding the intent element of the offense. View "State v. Webster" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminally possessing a firearm and several drug-related crimes. The appellate court affirmed Defendant's convictions. Defendant appealed. After noting that the appellate court properly resolved the issues Defendant brought up on appeal with a concise and well reasoned opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the appellate court (1) properly concluded that Defendant's right to due process under the Connecticut constitution was not violated by the state's inability to produce audio recordings of certain drug transactions; and (2) properly concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss. View "State v. Barnes" on Justia Law