Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealhearingtrialtestimonyhabeas corpuswillpiracy
appealtrialtestimonywillbailpiracy

Related Cases

Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124, 629 A.2d 413
View Case »
Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124, 629 A.2d 413
View Case »
Minnesota Tribune Co. v. Commissioner of Taxation, 228 Minn. 452, 37 N.W.2d 737
View Case »
Holsey v. Commissioner of Social Security, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2015 WL 8479301
View Case »
First State Bank of Stratford v. C I R, 335 U.S. 867, 69 S.Ct. 137 (Mem), 93 L.Ed. 412
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction, 89 Conn.App. 850, 877 A.2d 11

Facts

David Lewis was convicted of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the shooting death of Fitzroy Pink. The jury found him guilty on June 21, 1990, and he was sentenced to fifty years in prison. After his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Lewis filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus in 1993, alleging ineffective assistance of his trial counsel, John R. Williams, which led to the habeas hearing and subsequent appeal.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the petitioner's appeal. On June 21, 1990, the jury convicted the petitioner of murder and conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the shooting death of Fitzroy Pink, and acquitted him of conspiracy to commit murder in connection with the shooting of Kenneth Pascoe.

Issue

Did David Lewis receive ineffective assistance of counsel during his trial, thereby warranting a writ of habeas corpus?

The petitioner's claim on appeal concerns the alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

Rule

To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must show that counsel's performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, as established in Strickland v. Washington.

In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court established that for a petitioner to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show that counsel's assistance was so defective as to require reversal of [the] conviction.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Lewis's trial counsel, Williams, had performed adequately and whether any alleged deficiencies had prejudiced Lewis's defense. The court found that Lewis failed to demonstrate that the witnesses he claimed would have testified were available or that their testimony would have changed the outcome of the trial. Additionally, the court noted that Williams's decisions were tactical and did not constitute ineffective assistance.

The court heard testimony from Owen Lewis, who subsequently had conducted an investigation in 1992 and discovered two witnesses, Carl Mitchell and Leonard Moore, who would have impeached Bailey. The petitioner contends that Williams should have discovered those witnesses prior to the trial.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court, concluding that Lewis did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court evaluated all of the testimony and determined that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving both of the Strickland prongs.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that Lewis did not meet the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court determined that Williams' decision was a tactical decision and was not unreasonable under the circumstances.

You must be