September 5, 2019
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland
and tried to the court, Sferrazza, J.
A. Pattis, Bethany, with whom, on the brief, was Kevin Smith,
New Haven, for the appellant (petitioner).
C. Lukban, Rocky Hill, senior assistant states attorney,
with whom, on the brief, were Patrick Griffin, states
attorney, and Rebecca Barry, supervisory assistant states
attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Prescott and Bear, Js.
Conn.App. 341] In this "habeas on a
habeas," the petitioner, Thomas Rogers, appeals
from the habeas courts judgment denying his amended petition
for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner
claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim
that his trial counsel, Paul Carty, provided him with
ineffective assistance with respect to whether he should have
accepted a plea offer. The petitioner asserts that, but for
the deficient legal advice he received from his trial
counsel, he would have accepted a thirty-five year plea deal.
The petitioner also claims that the habeas court improperly
rejected his claim that his prior habeas counsel, Frank P.
Cannatelli, provided ineffective assistance by failing to
raise this claim in his first habeas petition. Having
reviewed the record, we conclude that [194 Conn.App. 342] the
habeas court properly denied the amended petition for a writ
of habeas corpus, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
the habeas court.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
disposition of the petitioners claim. The petitioner
participated in a shooting that occurred on November 20,
1994, that resulted in the death of one of the victims.
State v. Rogers, 50 Conn.App. 467, 469, 718 A.2d
985, cert. denied, 247 Conn. 942, 723 A.2d 319 (1998). After
the shooting, the petitioner, along with Isaac Council and
Larry McCowen, returned to the apartment of the petitioners
girlfriend and had a conversation in the living room.
Id., at 471, 480-81, 718 A.2d 985. Councils
girlfriend, Safira McLeod, overheard the postshooting
conversation between the petitioner, Council, and McCowen.
Id., at 480-81, 718 A.2d 985. From the kitchen,
which is where she was during the conversation, McLeod was
unable to hear everything they were discussing. Id.,
at 481, 718 A.2d 985. She did, however, hear them discuss a
shooting, people running, and someone being hit. Id.
During the conversation, the petitioner, Council, and McCowen
were laughing. Id. McLeod heard the petitioners
voice, but she was unable to attribute anything said during
the conversation to any one of its participants. Id.
Furthermore, McLeod neither heard the petitioner deny
participation in the shooting nor dispute what Council and
McCowen were saying. Id. The petitioner subsequently
was charged with murder, conspiracy to commit murder, attempt
to commit murder, criminal possession of a firearm, and
illegal possession of a weapon in a motor vehicle.
petitioner alleges that his trial counsel assured him that
McLeods testimony pertaining to the postshooting
conversation would not be admitted into evidence because it
He further [194 Conn.App. 343] alleges that trial counsel did
not explain to him that the testimony could be admitted as an
petitioner, however, also was aware of other parts of
McLeods potential testimony that were damaging to his
defense and that were not within the scope of his
trial counsels alleged deficient advice regarding the
testimonys admissibility. The habeas court stated that,
aside from McLeods recollection of the postshooting
conversation, McLeods testimony included "evidence that
the petitioner left with Council and McCowen, dressed as the
shooters were attired, in a vehicle that matched that of the
shooters at the time [194 ...