January 2, 2019
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland, Oliver, J.
Randall Bowers, with whom, on the brief, was Walter C.
Bansley IV, New Haven, for the appellant (petitioner).
M. Ralls, assistant states attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were Maureen Platt, states attorney, and Eva
Lenczewski, senior assistant states attorney, for the
C. J., and Alvord and Beach, Js.
Conn.App. 62] The petitioner, Robert King, appeals from the
judgment of the habeas court denying in part and [193
Conn.App. 63] dismissing in part his amended petition for a
writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that
the court improperly (1) concluded that the petitioner failed
to establish that he had received ineffective assistance from
his trial counsel, and (2) dismissed the petitioners claims
that his right to due process was violated by the trial
courts not stating on the record its refusal to accept the
petitioners pretrial plea agreement. We affirm the
judgment of the habeas court.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
decision. Following a jury trial, the petitioner was
convicted of two counts of assault in the first degree in
violation of subdivisions (1) and (3) of General Statutes §
53a-59 (a). During pretrial proceedings and at
trial, the petitioner was represented by Attorney Donald
petitioner appealed to this court, which reversed his
conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. State
v. King, 149 Conn.App. 361, 376, 87 A.3d 1193 (2014),
revd, 321 Conn. 135, 136 A.3d 1210 (2016). Our Supreme Court
reversed this courts judgment and remanded the case to this
court with direction to affirm the trial courts judgment.
State v. King, 321 Conn. 135, 158, 136 A.3d 1210
(2016). The petitioner commenced this habeas action, and,
after a trial, the habeas court denied in part and dismissed
in part his amended habeas petition. The habeas court
thereafter granted the petitioners petition for
certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this
Conn.App. 64] In its decision on the direct appeal, our
Supreme Court recited the following relevant facts, which the
jury reasonably could have found. "On December 18, 2010,
Kyle Neri and Angela Papp went to visit the victim, Kristen
Severino, at her residence in Waterbury. Neri and Papp had
spent the day getting high on crack cocaine and continued to
do so with the victim once they arrived at her residence.
While the three were sitting in the victims apartment, the
[petitioner] entered and began to argue with Neri over an
unpaid $10 loan that Neri owed the [petitioner]. As the
argument between Neri and the [petitioner] continued to
escalate, the [petitioner] went to the apartments kitchen
and returned, brandishing a steak knife. The [petitioner]
began waving the knife around and shouting at Neri and Papp
as Neri attempted to physically wrest the knife from the
victim then intervened in the altercation by attempting to
persuade the [petitioner] that Neri should not die over a $10
debt. When her verbal entreaties proved unsuccessful, the
victim attempted to physically separate the combatants as the
[petitioner] continued to swing the knife at Neri. The
[petitioner] then threw the victim against a wall and waved
the knife in front of her face. The victim attempted to move
and the [petitioner] rapidly stabbed her several times; he
then fled the scene." Id., at 138-39, 136 A.3d
1210. Additional facts and procedural history will be set
forth as necessary.
petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded
that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance.