Soyini v. Comm'r of Corr.

305 A.3d 662

222 Conn.App. 428

Quan A. SOYINI

v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

(AC 45712)

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 21, 2023

Officially Released November 21, 2023

Vishal K. Garg, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

Kathryn W. Bare, executive assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese Walcott, state’s attorney, and Jo Anne Sulik, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

Prescott, Clark and Seeley, Js.^*

PRESCOTT, J.

₄₃₀The petitioner, Quan A. Soyini, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.¹ In his petition, he asserted that his underlying conviction is invalid because his constitutional rights not to be subjected to ₄₃₁an unreasonable warrantless search of his cell phone, to due process, and to the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel were violated. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel was not violated on the basis of counsel’s failure to move to suppress certain evidence that the police extracted from the petitioner’s cell phone prior to obtaining a valid search warrant and the "fruits" of the purportedly unconstitutional search.² We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The facts underlying the petitioner’s criminal conviction as an accessory to murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-54a and for conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a were set forth by this court in our prior decision affirming the judgment of conviction. See State v. Soyini, 180 Conn. App. 205, 183 A.3d 42, cert. denied, 328 Conn. 935, 183 A.3d 1174 (2018). "In early July, 2013, the [petitioner] and his brothers, Kunta Soyini (Kunta) and Quincy Soyini (Quincy), attended the funeral of their father. At the funeral, the [petitioner] revealed to Quincy that he had been robbed at gunpoint while selling marijuana to the victim, Chimer Gordon. On the day of the robbery, the [petitioner] had asked Kunta to help him find the victim, but the two brothers were unable to locate him.

"Subsequently, on July 10, 2013, at approximately 10 a.m., the [petitioner] saw the victim and called Kunta. ₄₃₂Kunta drove to the [petitioner’s] location on Vine Street in Hartford. At that time, the [petitioner] was driving a black Audi. Both Kunta and the [petitioner] searched for the victim.

"At some point, the victim became fearful and ran into the house of Robert Davis and Gussie Mae Davis, which was located on Greenfield Street. After apologizing for the intrusion, the victim stated to the Davises that ‘they was trying to kill’ him and that if he called the police ‘they're gonna kill my family.’ … Gussie Mae Davis called 911, reporting that the victim, after entering her home, had stated that ‘guys was after him to kill him.’ … The victim, after exiting the residence, ran into the parking lot of the Thirman Milner School (school), which is located behind the Davises’ house. Moments later, the [petitioner] drove up to the house and asked Robert Davis if ‘a guy’ had run through the house.

"At this point, Kunta drove down Magnolia Street and saw the victim, who was wearing clothing that matched the description he had received from the [petitioner]. Kunta had no prior or pending disagreements with the victim and did not know him at all. Kunta exited his motor vehicle, walked through the school parking lot and approached the victim, who was crouched between parked cars. Kunta walked through the parking lot in the direction of the victim while talking on a cell phone and with his left hand in his pocket. Kunta then faced the victim and, when he was at a distance greater than one car length, removed a firearm from his left pants pocket. The victim was tying his shoe as Kunta aimed the firearm at him. The victim then turned to his left, got up and ran. While pursuing him, Kunta shot at the victim from close range, but missed. Kunta continued to chase the victim as he ran through the parking lot.

"A few moments later, the [petitioner], wearing a black T-shirt, black and red shorts, black ankle length ₄₃₃socks and flip-flops, walked through the school parking lot in the opposite direction from Kunta. As Roderick Maxwell, a special police officer employed by the Hartford Board of Education, investigated the noises that he had heard, he encountered the [petitioner]. The [petitioner] told Maxwell, ‘don’t worry about a thing.’

"The victim unsuccessfully attempted to scale a gate. Kunta then shot the victim in the chest, got in his car, and drove away. Maxwell heard Kunta emit a ‘ghastly, nightmarish laugh’ as he left the area.

"Jay Montrose, a Hartford police officer, responded to the 911 call. Montrose spoke with the Davises and then went outside, where he learned from Maxwell that the victim was lying on the ground near a fence. After driving his police vehicle into the school’s parking lot, Montrose observed that the victim had suffered a gunshot wound and had lost a fair amount of blood. Montrose commenced resuscitation efforts on the victim. Medical personnel arrived shortly thereafter and transported the victim to a hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries and died.

"Reginald Early, a sergeant in the Hartford Police Department, was assigned to investigate th[e] homicide. He reviewed a video recording of the school parking lot. Early also learned that a black Audi had been circling the neighborhood prior to the shooting. The [petitioner] was inside the car when investigating officers located the black Audi approximately one block from the school. The officers arrested the [petitioner] on an unrelated charge of possession of marijuana with intent to sell. Early concluded that the [petitioner] was wearing the same clothes as the person on the video recording who had walked through the school parking lot shortly after the initial shooting.

"Joseph Fargnoli, a Hartford police detective, interviewed the [petitioner] following his arrest. He showed ₄₃₄the recording from the school parking lot to the [petitioner], who confirmed that he and Kunta were the men in the recording. The [petitioner] denied knowing the victim or how he had died. The [petitioner] did, however, admit that he had spoken to an ‘old guy’ on Greenfield Street that morning, asking if a ‘kid’ had run through the house.

"Fargnoli, who had examined the [petitioner’s] cell phone records, determined that the [petitioner] had called Kunta first on the day of the shooting.³ The [petitioner], however, stated during his interview that Kunta had called him first, asking the [petitioner] to ‘come over ….’

"On the morning of the shooting, Kunta had driven his girlfriend, Shumia Brown, to work in Bloomfield at 4 a.m. Kunta was supposed to pick Brown up at 11 a.m., but was late. When he finally arrived, Brown voiced her displeasure with his tardiness, particularly because Kunta was using her motor vehicle. He explained that he ‘got caught up in some mess with [the petitioner]’ but did not elaborate.

"Later that day, Kunta told Brown that the [petitioner] had called him and instructed that they meet on Vine Street because the [petitioner] ‘ran into who had robbed him before.’ After traveling home, Kunta and Brown watched the afternoon news, and there was a story about the shooting at the school. Brown observed that Kunta started acting ‘funny’ and not ‘like himself.’ Brown asked if Kunta and the [petitioner] had anything to do with the shooting, and he hesitated in his re- sponse. At that point, Brown believed that Kunta had been ₄₃₅involved in the shooting. Kunta then admitted to his involvement in the shooting. Additionally, at a later date, Kunta stated, during a phone conversation with Brown, that he had gotten ‘involved in some drama behind [the petitioner].’

"Following the [petitioner’s] arrest, Kunta fled to Virginia. He eventually was taken into custody by United States marshals and returned to Connecticut. Following his return, Kunta pleaded guilty to murdering the victim. In a statement to the police, Kunta noted that on the day of the shooting, the [petitioner] had found the victim ‘walking around’ and called to request that Kunta ‘help him.’

"In an information dated May 27, 2015, the state charged the [petitioner] with being an accessory to murder and conspiracy to commit murder. The [petitioner] pleaded not guilty, and his trial spanned several days in July, 2015. The jury found him guilty on both counts. The [petitioner] received a total effective sentence of seventy years [of] incarceration …." (Emphasis in original; footnote added; footnotes omitted.) State v. Soyini, supra, 180 Conn. App. at 208–13, 183 A.3d 42. The petitioner filed a direct appeal in which he claimed that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on either the conspiracy or accessory charge and that the court gave improper jury instructions, including an unwarranted special credibility instruction on accomplice testimony. Id., at 207–208, 183 A.3d 42. This court affirmed the judgment of conviction; id., at 208, 183 A.3d 42; and our Supreme Court denied further review. State v. Soyini, 328 Conn. 935, 183 A.3d 1174 (2018).

During the pendency of his direct criminal appeal, the petitioner commenced the underlying habeas action. He later filed his five count, second amended petition on March 16, 2020. The petitioner alleged in counts one and two that his conviction was obtained in violation of ₄₃₆the fourth amendment to the United States constitution because the police conducted an unreasonable warrantless search of his cell phone and later submitted a warrant application that included a "false statement" in that the police requested to search the petitioner’s cell phone despite having already completed the search. In count three, he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective in a number of ways related to the physical...