Glen Mullings v. Warden, State Prison (2010)

EXCERPT HABEAS DECISION

THE COURT:  The petition for a writ of habeas corpus will be denied.

The primary issue in this matter is the medication that Mr. Mullings may or may not have been on.   The only proof of the medication is the testimony of the petitioner.

Assuming that to be true, this court has heard no evidence as to the pharmacological effects of Elavil and what may be the effect on an individual.

Certainly, the court, first of all, hasn't been asked to take judicial notice of the effects of Elavil.   Had it been asked, I would have denied it because that does not appear to be within the common knowledge of most people.

Based upon the descriptions of Mr. Mullings, how he said the Elavil affected him, and the description of how Mr. Mullings interacted with Attorney Channing, there does seem to be some major discrepancy between the testimony of the two.

In that regard, the court will give greater weight to the testimony of Attorney Channing because at this stage, of course, Attorney Channing has nothing to gain, whereas Mr. Mullings has everything to gain by magnifying the effect of the Elavil.

Most importantly is, when you're dealing with a guilty plea, in order to find ineffective assistance one has to find that there is deficient performance on the part of the attorney and prejudice to the petitioner in a habeas corpus.

Here I can't find any deficient performance on the part of Mr. Channing, nor do I see that even if there were, it operated to the prejudice of Mr. Mullings.

In a guilty plea case, in order to find that there has been prejudice, there must be evidence that the petitioner, but for the ineffective assistance of counsel, would not have pled guilty, would have taken the case to trial and would have been acquitted.   No evidence has been introduced to support that.

From the evidence presented by Attorney Channing, it seems crystal clear that Mr. Mullings' prime motivator in this matter was to avoid being labeled a sex offender, something that if he had pled, continued to plead not guilty and take the case to trial, in the opinion of his counsel, would have been a likely outcome.

As a result, Mr. Mullings came up with a somewhat ingenious recommendation to resolve the matter that resulted in a sentence that would have probably been close to what he would have received had he been convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, yet avoided him having to plead to sexual assault and be labeled as a sex offender.   It appeared to be an agreement that was accepted by all parties, that being the state and the petitioner, the defendant in the original case, as an acceptable way to resolve the matters confronting Mr. Mullings in the Judicial District of Waterbury.

That being said, the court finds no basis upon which to grant a habeas corpus petition.   Consequently, it's denied.

* * *

Fuger, J.

Fuger, S.T., J.