Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Rockville, Geographic Area 19
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
Vernon D. Oliver, J.
The petitioner, Anthony Varchetta, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that his various criminal trial attorneys and numerous prior habeas counsel provided him ineffective assistance in violation of the state and federal constitutions, and seeking to have his convictions vacated. Based upon the credible evidence presented, the court finds the issues for the respondent and denies the petition.
The petitioner was the defendant in a criminal matter in the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford under docket numbers CR02-86161 and CR96-497399. On July 3, 2003, the petitioner, pursuant to guilty pleas under the Alford Doctrine, was convicted of Sexual Assault in the first degree in violation of Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1) and one count of Sexual Assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1). The petitioner also admitted to a violation of probation in violation of General Statutes § 53a-32. The matter was continued for sentencing. On July 8, 2003, the trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years' incarceration, followed by thirteen years special parole. The petitioner's probation was terminated. The petitioner was represented at the time of his plea and sentencing by attorney Donald O'Brien. There was no direct appeal.
On or about April 10, 2005, the petitioner filed a Motion to Correct an Illegal Sentence in an effort to withdraw his guilty pleas. On September 13, 2005, after hearing, the Court (Koletsky, J.) denied the motion.
The petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus under docket number CV04-004351 at the Rockville Superior Court. In that matter he was represented by attorney Kenneth Fox. The petition was denied after trial in a written decision from the Court (T. Santos, J.).
The petitioner appealed the denial of his petition to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the habeas trial court's decision. Varchetta v. Comm'r of Corr., 104 Conn.App. 357, 933 A.2d 1224, cert. denied, 285 Conn. 902, 938 A.2d 594 (2007). The Appellate Court related the following procedural history and made the following findings relevant to this court's resolution of this petition:
On July 3, 2003, pursuant to a plea agreement, the petitioner entered a plea of guilty under the Alford doctrine to two counts of sexual assault in the first degree. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the petitioner received an agreed on sentence of twelve years incarceration with thirteen years special parole. Additionally, the state entered a nolle prosequi to the related kidnapping charge and agreed not to charge the petitioner as a persistent dangerous sexual offender, which carries the possibility of a life sentence. At no time during the plea canvass or the sentencing hearing did the petitioner voice any dissatisfaction with the plea agreement or the performance of his attorney. Moreover, the petitioner never asked to withdraw his guilty plea at any time prior to or after the imposition of his sentence.
On May 16, 2005, the petitioner filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claimed, inter alia, that his attorney failed to investigate his case or to adequately advise him and, as such, his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The habeas court found no basis for the petitioner's claims, denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and granted certification to appeal. This appeal followed.
After our plenary review of the record as a whole, we conclude that the petitioner failed to introduce any credible evidence that, but for the performance of his counsel, he would have changed his plea or that the outcome would have been different if he had gone to trial. Thus, the petitioner failed to meet his burden of establishing prejudice under the Strickland-Hill test.
The judgment is affirmed.
[fn1] The petitioner also claims that he was constructively denied the effective assistance of counsel pursuant to United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). Because the petitioner has raised this claim for the first time on appeal, we decline to address it. See Kelley v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn.App. 329, 335-36, 876 A.2d 600, cert. denied. 276 Conn. 909, 886 A.2d 423 (2005). [fn2] See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
[fn3] The petitioner had two prior sexual assault convictions and a total of approximately nineteen other convictions.
[fn5] Specifically, the petitioner claimed that his counsel failed to conduct a pretrial investigation, to discuss the basis of the charges with the petitioner, to move to suppress the petitioner's statement to the police, to discuss with the petitioner his chances of prevailing at trial, to discuss the possibility of being charged as a persistent dangerous sexual offender, to discuss his prior sexual assault convictions in relation to the possibility of his being charged as a persistent dangerous sexual offender, to ...