Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gudino v. Commissioner of Correction

Appellate Court of Connecticut

July 16, 2019

Joaquin GUDINO
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

         Argued January 28, 2019

         Appeal from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland at Rockville, Samuel J. Sferrazza, J.

Page 384

          Andrew S. Marcucci, assigned counsel, with whom was Naomi Fetterman, for the appellant (petitioner).

         James A. Killen, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Richard J. Colangelo, state’s attorney, and Angela R. Macchiarulo, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

         Lavine, Sheldon and Prescott, Js.[*]

          OPINION

         PRESCOTT, J.

         [191 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

Page 385

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 court.

         The relevant procedural history and facts[1] 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.

          On 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 petitioner’s 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 petitioner’s guilty plea, the state amended the information to reinstate the charge of murder.

          A jury 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.

         In 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.

          On 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 petitioner’s 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.

         A 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 petitioner’s appeal from the court’s denial of the petition certification to appeal.

Page 386

Gudino v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 123 Conn.App. at 725, 3 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.