Jackson v. Warden, State Prison

Kevin JACKSON v. WARDEN, STATE PRISON

No. CV154007247S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Rockville

December 12, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

OPINION

Sferrazza, J.

The petitioner, Kevin Jackson, seeks habeas corpus relief from a total, effective sentence of fourteen years imprisonment and six years special parole, imposed after a bench trial, for the crimes of assault first degree and witness tampering. The petitioner appealed from that judgment of conviction, and the Appellate Court heard oral argument on October 12, 2017 State v. Jackson, AC 38227.

The petitioner asserts two grounds for habeas corpus relief, viz ineffective assistance of defense counsel, Attorney Beth Merkin; and a freestanding due process violation stemming from the state’s failure to preserve the petitioner’s automobile which itself was or contained relevant evidence.

Judge Fischer made the following findings: " That on February 10, 2014, at 135 4th Street in Hamden, Connecticut, at approximately 8:20 in the evening Geoffrey Golding was stabbed by Kevin Jackson with a knife four times. The address is where Geoffrey Golding resided with his girlfriend at the time and their young children. His girlfriend’s name is Sammantha Wright. Kevin Jackson, the defendant, is a friend of Mr. Golding and he has come over to his residence the past several years, either on a monthly or a bi-monthly basis. Mr Jackson resides in the Philadelphia area down in Pennsylvania. They had been friendly for approximately two years or so. Geoffrey Golding is 25 years old. Mr. Golding was stabbed three times in his abdomen, and one time on his left elbow. He underwent surgery for his stab wounds. He had a lacerated liver. He had numerous puncture marks to his small intestines and part of his small intestine was removed. He was hospitalized for several days after the surgery. The medical records are indicated in State’s Exhibit number 18. The injuries to Mr. Golding were serious and they were life threatening. The surgical risks as this court finds credible were infections, extensive bleeding, potential obstructions in his intestines, and his liver was lacerated which is a vital organ. He did have extensive bleeding as a result of his injuries. He has extensive, Mr. Golding has [sic] extensive scarring in his stomach area, also to his elbow area, and a puncture in his abdomen and this court did observe that scarring and would refer to it as extensive scarring.

Mr. Goldling did not look to see who stabbed him. There was no other adult that was in the home at that time besides Sammantha Wright and the defendant, Kevin Jackson. Samantha Wright has known the defendant for approximately two years. Sammantha Wright was in the bedroom, sitting on her bed at approximately 8:20 when she saw the defendant stabbing Mr. Golding in the hallway outside her bedroom. Again, no other adults were in the home but Mr. Golding and the defendant. Miss Wright was approximately 10 feet away from the defendant when he was stabbing Mr. Golding. The court finds that her testimony is credible. The hallway was well illuminated and her bedroom was also illuminated. Miss- Ms. Wright saw the faces of Mr. Golding and Mr. Jackson.

The defendant did not have a mask or a hoodie on at all, nothing that was concealing his face. Miss Wright was 100% sure it was the defendant who was stabbing Mr. Golding. She then sees Mr. Golding, her boyfriend, bleeding, and she then calls 911, and as the evidence shows she tells the dispatcher that Kevin Jackson just stabbed Mr. Golding. The defendant leaves the house after the stabbing. The defendant, a short time later is detained at the Walmart in New Haven, I think it’s approximately 90 minutes later. At that time he was in the Walmart and he was shoplifting a machete. Sammantha Wright is brought to the Walmart and she positively identifies Mr. Jackson as the person who did the stabbing. He had the same clothing on that he had on during the stabbing. Also, on Mr. Jackson’s presence was the kitchen knife he used to stab the victim, Mr. Golding.

On the blade of the knife was blood stains that were confirmed by DNA analysis to be the blood of the victim, Mr. Golding, that’s State’s number 27. In the defendant’s car, this is Mr. Jackson’s car, he had a three-piece cutlery set, State’s Exhibit number 21. The knife he used was one of the three pieces, the smaller piece from that cutlery set, that smaller knife had been removed from the packet and it was identical to the other two knives from that set, same color, same style. The defendant testified and he alleges that two other men entered the home that evening. The court does not find credible his testimony of others in the home that evening. The court does not find credible his denial of stabbing Mr. Golding. Mr. Jackson has two felony convictions.

Now, Mr. Golding, after he returned home after the surgery he did receive a letter from the defendant which is State’s Exhibit 13B. He did read the letter but he did not understand the letter. Now, Sammantha Wright also received a letter from the defendant shortly after the stabbing which is State’s Exhibit 15B. It was addressed to her and the letter states in part, and I quote directly from the letter, " Sam, please tell them you are not sure who it was. They think it’s me." She was scared and upset after receiving the letter, reading the letter, she immediately called the police department after the receipt of the letter."

" The fourth and final count concerns a letter that was received by Sammantha Wright, and again I put on the record my finding and this is different than count three, where he specifically says, this is the defendant in the letter, " Sam, please tell them you are not sure who it was, that they think it’s me." And it’s directed to Sammantha Wright, signed by the defendant and I do make a finding that each and every element of the elements needed in tampering with a witness have been proven on that count, the fourth count. So Madam Clerk, on the fourth count it’s a finding of guilty. She read it. She was upset by it. She was scared. She called the police right away, " State v. Jackson, Superior Court, New Haven Judicial District, d.n. CR 14-277293 (November 26, 2014), transcript pp. 41 to 48.

Ineffective Assistance Claim

Our Supreme court has adopted the two-pronged Strickland test for evaluating ineffective assistance claims. Johnson v. Commissioner, 218 Conn. 403, 425 (1991); Ostolaza v. Warden, 26 Conn.App. 758, 761 (1992). The Strickland criteria requires that the petitioner demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that his attorney’s performance was substandard and that there exists a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. Id.

As to the performance prong of Strickland, the petitioner must establish that habeas counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Johnson v Commissioner, supra.

This standard of reasonableness is measured by prevailing, professional practices. Id. The habeas court must make every effort to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight and to reconstruct the circumstances surrounding counsel’s conduct from that attorney’s perspective at the time of the representation. Id.

If it is easier to dispose of a claim of ineffective assistance on the ground of insufficient proof of prejudice, the habeas court may address that issue directly without reaching the question of counsel’s competence. Pelletier v. Warden, 32 Conn.App. 38, 46 (1993). In order to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland test, the petitioner must prove that there exists a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceedings would have been different. Levine v. Manson, 195 Conn. 636, 640 (1985). Reasonable probability means a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. Daeira v. Commissioner, 107 Conn.App. 539, 542-43 (2008), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 911 (2008).

The petitioner alleges that Attorney Merkin represented him deficiently in the following specific ways:

1. she failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case;

2. she failed to consult with, retain, and present the testimony of an expert witness with expertise in crime scene reconstruction;

3. she failed to consult with, retain, and present the testimony of an expert witness with expertise in blood spatter patterns;

4. she failed to file a motion to dismiss the case or seek other appropriate remedies under State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (1995) based on the police’s disposal of evidence relevant to the defense;

5. she failed to obtain and present an accurate diagram of the floorplan of the house where the crime occurred;

6. she failed to adequately cross examine, impeach, and otherwise challenge the testimony of Sammantha Wright;

7. she failed to adequately cross examine, impeach, and otherwise challenge the testimony of Geoffrey Golding; and,

8. she failed to present the testimony of Samiya Williams.

Because the state’s evidence of the petitioner’s guilt was overwhelming and the petitioner’s version of events so implausible, the court addresses the prejudice component of the Strickland standard directly.

A careful examination of the trial transcript and exhibits admitted at the criminal trial, in conjunction with the credible evidence adduced at the habeas trial, the court makes the following findings of fact and rulings of law. The petitioner and the victim met as participants in a clinical trial conducted at Yale University. The petitioner resided in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and commuted to New Haven to attend the clinical trials. Occasionally, the victim of the alleged assault...