September 7, 2017
Ost Seifert, assigned counsel, for the appellant
R. Lockwood, senior assistant state's attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney,
and Eva B. Lenczewski, supervisory assistant state's
attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Alvord, Kahn and Bear, Js.
petitioner, who had been convicted on a plea of guilty to the
crime of burglary in the first degree, sought a writ of
habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his trial counsel
had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to convey the
petitioner's acceptance of a plea offer from the state on
the day that the offer was made and by subsequently failing
to prevent the plea offer from lapsing. After an initial plea
offer was made, the prosecutor informed the petitioner that
that offer was no longer available, and the petitioner
accepted a less favorable plea offer. The habeas court
rendered judgment denying the petition, concluding, inter
alia, that the petitioner's testimony that he had
instructed counsel to accept the initial plea offer prior to
the prosecutor's withdrawal of that offer was not
credible. Thereafter, the habeas court granted the petition
for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to
this court. Held that the judgment of the habeas
court denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was
affirmed; the habeas court having thoroughly addressed the
arguments raised in this appeal, this court adopted the
habeas court's well reasoned decision as a statement of
the facts and the applicable law on the issues.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the
court, Bright, J.; judgment denying the petition, from which
the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to
this court. Affirmed.
petitioner, Rocco Yashenko, appeals from the judgment of the
habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas
court improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not
provide ineffective assistance by failing to adequately
prevent a plea offer from lapsing. We affirm the judgment of
the habeas court.
record and the habeas court's opinion reveal the
following facts and procedural history. On January 26, 2013,
the petitioner was arrested for participating in a burglary
in Waterbury. On October 17, 2013, the petitioner pleaded
guilty to the charge of burglary in the first degree in
violation of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (3), and he
was sentenced to five years of incarceration followed by five
years of special parole.
August 13, 2015, the petitioner filed an amended petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. In his amended petition, the
petitioner claims that his first trial counsel, Brian Pear,
rendered ineffective assistance by not conveying on May 3,
2013, his acceptance of a plea offer made by the state for
the first time on that day, while the case was pending in
part B of the criminal docket in Waterbury. By the
petitioner's next court date on May 30, 2013, the state
had decided to transfer the petitioner's pending charges,
with the exception of a motor vehicle charge, to part A of
the criminal docket. The part B prosecutor informed the
petitioner that the May 3, 2013 plea offer was no longer
available to him. Eventually, while the charges were pending
in part A, the state offered a new, less favorable plea offer
that the petitioner accepted. The petitioner further alleges
a violation of his due process rights because his guilty plea
was involuntary. Following a trial held on February 5, 2016,
the habeas court, on May 25, 2016, denied the petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. On June 8, 2016, it granted the
petition for certification to appeal.
habeas court did not find credible the petitioner's
testimony that he had instructed Pear to accept the May 3,
2013 offer prior to the state's withdrawal of that offer.
Rather, the court determined that the petitioner, before he
decided whether to accept the state's offer, wanted to
see what happened with his codefendant's pending case,
and whether he could get a better plea offer that included no
probationary period. Additionally, the court found that
although the petitioner was disappointed with the terms of
the state's second plea offer, which he accepted on
October 17, 2013, his guilty plea was nevertheless knowingly
and voluntarily entered.
examination of the record on appeal and the parties'
briefs and arguments, we conclude that the judgment of the
habeas court should be affirmed.
the habeas court thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in
this appeal, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a
statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues.
See Yashenko v. Commissioner of Correction,
Superior Court, judicial district of Tol-land, Docket No.
CV-14-4006262-S (May 25, 2016) (reprinted in 177 Conn.App.).
Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful
purpose. See, e.g., Woodruff v. Hemingway,
297 Conn. 317, 321, 2 A.3d 857 (2010); Brander v.
Stoddard, 173 Conn.App. 730, 732, 164 A.3d 889
judgment is affirmed.
Court, Judicial District of Tolland File No. CV-14-4006262-S
filed May 25, 2016