Shaheer v. Comm'r of Corr.

207 Conn.App. 449

262 A.3d 152

Talib SHAHEER

v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

AC 43685

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued February 16, 2021

Officially released September 14, 2021

J. Christopher Llinas, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

Linda F. Currie, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese Hodge, state's attorney, Leah Hawley, senior assistant state's attorney, and Tamara Grosso, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

Bright, C. J., and Alvord and Elgo, Js.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Talib Shaheer, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The defendant was charged in a nine count information with one count of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c ; one count of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (B) ; one count of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (1) ; two counts of tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-155 (a) (1); one count of hindering prosecution in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-166 ; one count of false statement in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-157b; one count of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a ; and one count of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. On April 16, 2015, the state filed a substitute information, and the petitioner entered pleas under the Alford doctrine¹ to one count of robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-135 (a) (1) (B) and one count of tampering with physical evidence in violation of § 53a-155 (a) (1). He was sentenced to a total effective term of fifteen years of incarceration.

The petitioner initiated this matter by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In his operative petition, the petitioner alleged that his trial counsel, Attorney Bruce Lorenzen, rendered ineffective assistance in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights. Specifically, he claimed that Lorenzen's performance was deficient for, inter alia, failing to investigate certain witnesses, failing to timely raise a defense of duress, failing to provide critical information and/or correct information to the petitioner, and failing to review the strengths and weaknesses of the state's evidence.² Following a habeas trial, the court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. With respect to the petitioner's claim that Lorenzen was ineffective for failing to timely raise a defense of duress, the court found it to be without merit. Specifically, it determined that, "to the extent the petitioner is asserting a claim that he pleaded guilty because he felt his duress defense was not going to be presented to the jury due to late disclosure, his claim is not credible." On November 1, 2019, the court granted the petition for certification to appeal.

The principal issue raised by the petitioner in this appeal is that the court improperly rejected his claim that Lorenzen provided ineffective assistance by failing to provide timely notice of his intention to use the expert testimony of Andrew W. Meisler, a psychologist, in support of a duress defense pursuant to Practice Book § 40-18.³ The petitioner contends that, as a result of Lorenzen's alleged ineffective assistance, "the possibility existed that [the court] could exclude ... Meisler's expert testimony, leaving the petitioner with the sole option of testifying himself in support of his duress defense." (Emphasis added.) The petitioner further contends that, but for his "potential inability to present ... Meisler's expert testimony in support of his duress defense," he would not have pleaded guilty and would have proceeded to trial. (Emphasis added.)⁴

We have examined the record on appeal, the briefs and arguments of the parties, and conclude that the judgment of the habeas court, Seeley , J ., should be affirmed. Because the court thoroughly addressed the petitioner's argument raised in this appeal that Lorenzen's representation was constitutionally ineffective, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and the applicable law on that issue. See Shaheer v. Commissioner of Correction , Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. CV-17-4009009-S, 2019 WL 5858043 (October 21, 2019) (reprinted at 207 Conn. App. 454, 262 A.3d 152). Any further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See, e.g., Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction , 205 Conn. App. 173, 189, 256 A.3d 174 (2021).

The judgment is affirmed.

APPENDIX

The petitioner, Talib Shaheer, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that his trial counsel provided him ineffective assistance in violation of the state and federal constitutions. The petitioner is seeking to have his convictions vacated and the matter be returned to the trial court for further proceedings.

Based on the credible evidence presented and for the reasons stated, the petition is denied.

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The petitioner was a criminal defendant in the matter of State v. Shaheer , Docket No. CR-13-0670827-T, in the judicial district of Hartford. He was charged in a nine count information with the following offenses: felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (B), robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (1), two counts of tampering with physical evidence in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-155 (a) (1), hindering prosecution in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-166, false statement in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a-157b, interfering with police in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a and tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. Attorney Bruce Lorenzen represented the petitioner in the criminal proceedings.

On April 16, 2015, the state filed a substitute information, and the petitioner pleaded guilty pursuant to the Alford doctrine to robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-135 (a) (1) (B) and he pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence in violation of General Statutes § 53a-155 (a) (1). The state summarized the underlying facts at the change of plea hearing as follows: "Your Honor, the [petitioner] went to buy marijuana from the victim, Christopher Jefferson, on September 5, 2013, on Bond Street in the city of Hartford. He invited the female codefendant, Madelyne Martinez-Mercado, along for the ride. They had just met the day before. He drove the Mercedes that his girlfriend, Lourdes Tones, had rented for him to the location. Upon arrival, the victim was told to get in the backseat of the car. At this time, the [petitioner] pulled a gun from ... under his seat, the driver seat, pointed it at the victim with the intent of robbing him. The [petitioner] claims that it was the female codefendant who pulled the gun and pointed it at the victim. The [petitioner] then took off, causing the car doors to lock. The victim tried to get out of the car ... but he also tried to pound on the glass to signal his friends that he was being kidnapped. He then grabbed ... hold of the [petitioner], but then [the] petitioner yelled for the codefendant to take the gun, which she did. She put it to the victim's head and shot him. They then drove to Portland, Connecticut, to dump the body, stopping for gas along the way in Cromwell. The [petitioner] removed the victim's body from the car in Portland and dumped it in the woods .... He then drove to a car wash in Hamden where they cleaned the blood out of the car. He then drove to a dumpster in a housing project ... in Hamden and disposed of the gun in a book bag that he had in the car. The gun was never recovered. ... A passerby found the victim's body in Portland a very short time after it was dumped and called the police. The victim died the next day as a result of the gunshot wound at Hartford Hospital."

On June 16, 2015, the court, Alexander, J ., sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of fifteen years to serve. Thereafter, on or about August 9, 2017, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After counsel was appointed, the petition was amended several times. The operative pleading is the second revised petition dated February 4, 2019, and filed on February 13, 2019, which alleges he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights. Specifically, he claims the performance of his trial counsel was deficient in numerous ways, namely, failing to investigate certain witnesses, failing to timely raise a defense of duress, failing to provide critical information and/or correct information to the petitioner, and failing to review the strengths and weaknesses of the state's evidence.¹

The court heard the trial on this matter on February 27, 2019. The petitioner called five witnesses: himself, Attorney Bruce Lorenzen (trial counsel), Attorney John Stawicki (cocounsel), Andrew W. Meisler, PhD (an expert witness who examined the petitioner and supported the petitioner's general defense of duress), and Jamal Pilgrim (a lay witness). The petitioner also introduced numerous exhibits, including a copy of the certified clerk's file, transcripts of the change of plea hearing and sentencing hearing, various witness statements and police reports, and an evaluation prepared by Dr. Meisler. The respondent did not call any witnesses or introduce any exhibits.

II

FINDINGS OF...