Williams v. Warden

Luis Williams (Inmate #251994) v. Warden

No. TSRCV154007169S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Somers, Geographic Area 19

October 29, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Seeley, Hope C., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Seeley, J.

The petitioner, LUIS WILLIAMS, brings this second petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that his trial counsel in the criminal proceedings, his first habeas trial counsel, and his first habeas appellate counsel provided him ineffective assistance of counsel. The petitioner is seeking to have his convictions vacated and to be released from confinement.

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

I PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The petitioner was a criminal defendant in the matter of State v. Williams, HHB-CR04-0334185-T, in the judicial district of New Britain. Following a jury trial, he was convicted of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278(b), possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a(b), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217. At trial, he was represented by Attorney Paul Bialobrezeski.

On July 26, 2006, the court, D’Addabbo, J., sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of twenty-three years of incarceration to run consecutive to another sentence the petitioner already was serving. Thereafter, on or about September 28, 2009, the petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was amended on or about March 27, 2015. The petitioner alleged the following: (1) his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial were violated by the state’s failure to disclose material favorable evidence, namely, one of the state’s witnesses, a police officer, was engaged in criminal conduct at the time the petitioner was arrested and during his trial; (2) his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial were violated by the state’s presentation and failure to correct false testimony by two police officers; (3) his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial were violated by the state’s improper comments during closing argument; (4) he was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel; and, (5) he was denied the effective assistance of appellate counsel in violation of his state and federal constitutional rights.

The first habeas court, Fuger, J., heard evidence on March 26 2015. The petitioner was represented by Attorney Michael Brown. Following closing arguments by counsel on April 2, 2015, the habeas court denied the petitioner’s habeas petition in an oral decision. The petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the habeas court denied.

Thereafter, the petitioner appealed from the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal. Attorney Stephanie L. Evans represented the petitioner on appeal. The petitioner argued that (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to raise a claim of prosecutorial impropriety that occurred during closing arguments; and, (2) his counsel on direct appeal provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to raise a claim of prosecutorial impropriety. The Appellate Court concluded that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and dismissed the appeal. Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn.App. 776, 778, 153 A.3d 656 (2016).

On or about May 5, 2015, the petitioner filed the instant petition, his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After counsel was appointed, the petition was amended twice. The operative pleading is the second amended petition dated August 16, 2017, which alleges the following: (1) Habeas trial counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to effectively present a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for inadequately cross examining Harold Setzer; and, (b) failing to effectively present a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to effectively challenge the lawfulness of the search; and, (2) Habeas appellate counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to adequately brief the claim that the habeas court erred in failing to find that trial defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel; and, (b) failing to raise an independent claim that the habeas court erred in failing to find prosecutorial impropriety for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, permitting and failing to correct false testimony, and for making improper remarks during closing arguments.^[1]

The court heard the trial on this matter on April 18, 2018. The petitioner called three witnesses in addition to himself: Attorney Paul Bialobrzeski, Josue Williams, Harold Setzer, Peter Massey and Attorney Michael Brown. The petitioner introduced numerous exhibits, including photographs of the location where the petitioner was arrested, various police reports and transcripts from the criminal trial, including the motion to suppress hearing^[2] and the sentencing hearing. The petitioner also introduced several exhibits relating to his first habeas proceeding, including the transcripts from the first habeas trial, the first habeas court’s decision dated April 2, 2015 (Docket No. TSR-CV09-4003210-S), the petitioner’s brief to the Appellate Court and the appellate decision in Williams v. Commissioner of Correction, 169 Conn.App. 776, 153 A.3d 656 (2016). The respondent did not call any witnesses, but he did introduce several exhibits, including a certified copy of the court file in the criminal case, several pleadings and court decisions, a police report and transcripts.

The petitioner filed a post-trial brief on July 2, 2018. The respondent filed a notice of its intent to rely on the evidence at trial in lieu of a post-trial brief. In his brief, the petitioner pursued the following specific claims against prior habeas counsel: (1) he was ineffective for failing to present a claim that trial counsel was ineffective by not calling United States Marshal James Masterson as a witness to counter testimony by two police officers presented by the state as to where the petitioner was located when the police entered the apartment; (2) he was ineffective for not effectively challenging the credibility of one of the state’s witnesses, Sergeant Harold Setzer, and for not presenting a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not cross examining Setzer about being under investigation for criminal conduct at the time he testified in the petitioner’s criminal trial; and, (3) he was ineffective for not calling an expert in law enforcement to testify at the first habeas trial to establish that the protective sweep in this case was a full search.

The petitioner also stated in his post-trial brief that he raised meritorious issues at his first habeas trial and that his habeas appellate counsel was ineffective for not adequately briefing the claim that the habeas court erred in failing to find that trial defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel and for not raising an independent claim that the habeas court erred in failing to find prosecutorial impropriety for failing to disclose exculpatory evidence, permitting and failing to correct false testimony, and for making improper remarks during closing arguments.

II FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Based on the credible evidence presented, the court makes the following findings of fact. On September 3, 2004, the petitioner was arrested and charged with possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of § 21a-278(b), possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a(b) and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of § 53a-217. Petitioner’s trial counsel in the criminal case was Paul Bialobrzeski, an attorney in the Waterbury area who began practicing law in 1980 and who steadily represented defendants in serious felony matters beginning in 1987.

On May 16, 2006, the petitioner, through counsel, filed a motion to suppress all tangible evidence recovered from him and the apartment and any resulting statements he made. At the suppression hearing, the court heard testimony from Detective Santopietro, Sergeant Setzer, and the defendant’s brother, Josue Williams. The court (D’Addabbo, J.) denied the motion in a memorandum of decision filed June 20, 2007.

The testimony from the state’s witnesses, Santopietro and Setzer, established the following facts at the suppression hearing held on May 18, 2006: On September 3, 2004, police officers from the New Britain and Waterbury police departments, aided by two United States marshals, executed two arrest warrants for the petitioner at an efficiency apartment at 636 Riverside Avenue in Waterbury. One arrest warrant charged the petitioner with robbery in the first degree in which the petitioner allegedly used a firearm, and the second warrant charged the petitioner with assault in the second degree in which the petitioner also allegedly used a firearm. Additionally, the officers had an arrest warrant for the petitioner’s brother, Josue Williams, for violation of probation.

The police had received intelligence that the petitioner was at this location. The building is a three-floor apartment complex with decks overlooking the rear side. Upon arrival three officers, including Sergeant Harold Setzer, went to the rear of the residence, while other officers went into the common hallway of the apartment building to the front door of the apartment where they be...