January 28, 2019
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at
Rockville, Samuel J. Sferrazza, J.
S. Marcucci, assigned counsel, with whom was Naomi Fetterman,
for the appellant (petitioner).
A. Killen, senior assistant states attorney, with whom, on
the brief, were Richard J. Colangelo, states attorney, and
Angela R. Macchiarulo, senior assistant states attorney, for
the appellee (respondent).
Sheldon and Prescott, Js.[*]
Conn.App. 265] The petitioner, Joaquin Gudino, appeals
following the granting of his petition for certification to
appeal from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing in
part and denying in part his amended petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims, among other
things, that the habeas court improperly (1) dismissed count
one of the amended petition alleging ineffective assistance
of trial counsel on the ground that it constituted an
improperly successive petition, and (2) denied count two
alleging ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel on
the ground that the petitioner failed to prove
that he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance
of both his prior habeas counsel and his trial counsel. We
disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas
relevant procedural history and facts are as follows. In
1996, the petitioner was charged with murder in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-54a. The petitioner was represented in
the trial court by Attorney Robert A. [191 Conn.App. 266]
Skovgaard. On January 28, 1998, the petitioner entered a
guilty plea to a substitute information charging him with
manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in exchange
for a recommended sentence of twenty-five years of
incarceration. When the petitioner entered his plea, the
court, Dean, J., indicated that its willingness to
impose the recommended sentence was contingent on its review
of a presentence investigation report (PSI). The case was
continued for preparation of the PSI and for sentencing.
April 24, 1998, the court informed the parties that it was
unwilling to impose the recommended sentence in light of
unfavorable information contained in the petitioners PSI.
Accordingly, the court permitted the petitioner to withdraw
his guilty plea and to enter a plea of not guilty. Following
the withdrawal of the petitioners guilty plea, the state
amended the information to reinstate the charge of murder.
trial commenced on July 28, 1998. At trial, several witnesses
testified that the petitioner had shot the victim. Prior to
the close of evidence, the petitioner and the state reached a
new plea agreement, and the petitioner pleaded guilty to
murder in exchange for a recommended sentence of forty-five
years of incarceration. The court, Nigro, J.,
subsequently imposed the recommended sentence.
2000, the petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. See Gudino v. Warden, Superior Court,
judicial district of New Haven, Docket No. CV-
00-0435107-S, 2009 WL 242314 (Conn.Super. January 7, 2009).
Attorney Paul R. Kraus was appointed by the court to
represent the petitioner.
March 13, 2007, the petitioner filed a three count amended
petition. Count one alleged that his trial counsel had
provided ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the
petitioner asserted in count one that his trial counsel was
ineffective because he failed (1) to [191 Conn.App. 267] seek
a dismissal of the jury panel on the ground of alleged juror
misconduct, (2) to advise the petitioner that he would lose
his right to raise the juror misconduct issue on appeal if he
pleaded guilty, and (3) to advise the petitioner about the
possibility of pleading guilty conditionally in order to
preserve his right to raise the juror misconduct issue on
appeal. Count two alleged that the petitioners decision to
plead guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and
intelligently made. Count three alleged that the trial court
violated his due process rights by failing to declare a
mistrial due to alleged juror misconduct.
habeas trial was conducted by the court, Hon. William L.
Hadden, judge trial referee. The court subsequently
denied the petition and the subsequent petition for
certification to appeal. This court dismissed the
petitioners appeal from the courts denial of the petition
certification to appeal.
Gudino v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 123
Conn.App. at 725, 3 ...