Ramey v. Comm'r of Corr.

150 Conn.App. 205

90 A.3d 344

Ryan RAMEY

v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

No. 34367.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Feb. 18, 2014.

Decided May 13, 2014.

Michael D. Day, for the appellant (petitioner).

Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Eva B. Lenczewski, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

ALVORD, KELLER and PELLEGRINO, Js.

ALVORD, J.

The petitioner, Ryan Ramey, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he was not deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, the petitioner claims that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise the issue of intoxication to negate an element of the crime of which he was convicted at the underlying criminal trial. We dismiss the petitioner's appeal.

The relevant facts and procedural history are set forth in this court's decision disposing of the petitioner's direct appeal. “The [petitioner] lived in a first floor apartment in Naugatuck from March, 2004, to October, 2006. All six apartments in the building had tenants at the time. In the late morning of October 13, 2006, the [petitioner] telephoned Samantha Squires, his former fiancee and the mother of his two children, and indicated a desire to commit suicide. In response, Squires called the police and asked them to check on him. When the police arrived at the apartment building, they saw that a window on the first floor had been punched out and broken glass was hanging from it. Rather than entering the building, the police decided to attempt to make telephone contact with the [petitioner]. At 11:25 a.m., the police telephoned the [petitioner] at a number provided by Squires. The [petitioner] answered but immediately hung up once the police officer identified himself. At 11:31 a.m., the other first floor tenant, who was nervous because she had heard breaking noises coming from the [petitioner's] apartment for several hours, left the premises in her car. The police continued to call the [petitioner's] telephone number, but he would not converse with them.

“A police officer reported seeing a person moving back and forth inside the [petitioner's] apartment at 12:04 p.m. At 12:15 p.m., the [petitioner] answered a telephone call from a police officer, threatened to jump out a window if the police called again, and then hung up. The officer telephoned again at 12:20 p.m., but the call went straight to voice mail, as did all subsequent calls. Another police officer reported seeing smoke inside the building at 12:22 p.m. At 12:25 p.m., he saw the [petitioner], who was coughing, climb onto the fire escape through a back window. After the officer asked him to come down, the [petitioner] reentered the building and closed the blinds and one of the windows. The officer then reported at 12:31 p.m. that the fire had died down. At 12:38 p.m., however, he reported that the fire had regained force. Thereafter, the fire became progressively worse, melting the blinds and roaring. Rescue workers waited outside the building because they did not know the [petitioner's] location and they feared for their own safety. At 1:37 p.m., the [petitioner] fell from a third story window, at which time the police had to physically restrain him while placing him under arrest. Firefighters immediately began to suppress the fire. While they were inside the house, however, part of the roof collapsed, forcing them to retreat. Ultimately, they were able to extinguish the fire only after the building sustained severe structural damage.” State v. Ramey, 127 Conn.App. 560, 562–64, 14 A.3d 474, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 910, 19 A.3d 177 (2011).

The petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimes of arson in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–111 (a)(1), arson in the first degree in violation of § 53a–111 (a)(4) and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167a.¹ The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twelve years incarceration with eight years to serve and three years of probation. Id., at 564, 14 A.3d 474.

On January 25, 2012, the petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his trial counsel, Attorney H. Jeffrey Beck, provided ineffective assistance because he “failed to present evidence supporting his intoxication at the time of the alleged offense or to raise a defense of intoxication to the arson charges.” At the habeas trial, the court heard testimony from Beck and the petitioner. The trial exhibits included the state's charging information, transcripts of the criminal proceedings and the petitioner's medical record that indicated he had a blood alcohol level of 0.274 on the day of the fire. At the conclusion of the habeas trial on February 2, 2012, the court denied the petition in an oral decision.

The court first noted that Beck was “very experienced,” “supremely educated” and “competent and skilled in what he does.” ² On the basis of Beck's testimony, the court found that Beck had considered raising the issue of the petitioner's intoxication and had discussed that potential strategy with him. Ultimately, Beck concluded that it would be a better defense strategy to attack the weaknesses in the state's case. The habeas court determined that Beck's performance was not deficient. It also concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that he had been prejudiced in any way by the failure to raise at the criminal trial the issue of his level of intoxication. The court subsequently denied the petition for certification to appeal from the judgment denying the habeas petition. This appeal followed.

We first consider the petitioner's claim that the habeas court improperly denied his petition for certification to appeal. The standard of review is well settled. “We examine the petitioner's underlying claim ... to determine whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. ... In a habeas appeal, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, but our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a violation of the petitioner's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is plenary....

“In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court enunciated the two requirements that must be met before a petitioner is entitled to reversal of a conviction due to ineffective assistance of counsel. First, the [petitioner] must show that counsel's performance was deficient.... Second, the [petitioner] must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.... Unless a [petitioner] makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction ... resulted from a breakdown in the adversarial process that renders the result unreliable.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) McClam v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn.App. 432, 435–36, 909 A.2d 72 (2006), cert. denied, 281 Conn. 907, 916 A.2d 49 (2007). “A reviewing court need not address both components of the inquiry if the [petitioner] makes an insufficient showing on one.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Smith v. Commissioner of Correction, 89 Conn.App. 134, 139, 871 A.2d 1103, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 909, 882 A.2d 676 (2005).

The petitioner claims that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance because “he failed to raise an intoxication defense” at the underlying criminal trial. Intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge, but it may be offered by a defendant to negate an element of the crime charged. ³ The petitioner argues that because his blood alcohol level on the day of the incident was 0.274, defense counsel should have advanced the theory “that even assuming, arguendo, that the petitioner did start the fire, the petitioner was unable to formulate the specific intent required for the commission of the crime of arson in the first degree.”

At the habeas trial, Beck testified that he believed the state would not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner intended to damage or destroy a dwelling or building or that he intended to start a fire, as required for a conviction of arson in the first degree.⁴ He based this opinion on the fact that the fire marshal did not know and could not testify as to how the fire originated. Although the fire marshal believed it had started in the living room area of the petitioner's apartment because of the burn pattern, the cause of the fire remained undetermined. Further, there was no evidence of any accelerant being used to start the fire. Because the state had no physical evidence of the fire being set intentionally, Beck determined that the best trial strategy would be to undermine the state's case by focusing on its weaknesses.

Beck further testified that he had considered raising the issue of the petitioner's level of intoxication on the day of the fire and had discussed that potential strategy with the petitioner. He believed, however, that the best strategy was to attack the weaknesses in the state's case because the failure to prove the petitioner's intent to destroy or damage the apartment building by starting a fire would result in his acquittal. Beck believed that focusing on the petitioner's voluntary intoxication “might not play well with the jury.” The petitioner told Beck that he had little or no recollection of what happened when the fire started, and Beck believed it would not be helpful to raise the issue of intoxication because “it kind of looks like an excuse to criminal conduct....” Furtherm...