Channy Khuth v. Warden (2010)

DECISION

THE COURT:  All right.   The following will constitute the decision of this Court.   Madam Court Reporter, please transcribe from this point forward.

There's a key point to remember when addressing a habeas corpus petition.   Number one, a petitioner in a habeas corpus proceeding is not in the same status as a defendant in a criminal case.

Unlike the defendant in a criminal case, the petitioner's not entitled to the presumption of innocence because at this stage, the petitioner has in fact been found guilty.   He is, therefore, a convict versus a defendant.

Consequently, as a result, the burden of proof is placed upon the petitioner to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence as to why he is entitled to relief.

Now, in this case, the issue is quite tightly focused.   The issue involves whether the petitioner rejected a plea agreement or his attorneys forced him to reject the plea agreement.

The argument is that his lawyers were ineffective in their representation.   The case that deals with ineffective representation is the U.S. Supreme Court case Strickland versus Washington, and that's sets up a two part test.

In order to be found ineffective, an attorney must, first of all, have engaged in deficient performance, and secondly, as a result of that deficient performance, the attorney-I'm sorry the petitioner-must have suffered some prejudice.

Both of these conditions must be proven.   If only one is proven, then the petition shall be denied, and the Court can decide the petition on whichever prong is appropriate or easier without having to even resort to the other one.

Now, it is clear that the petitioner is facing a potentially lengthy sentence as a result of a serious crime.   It is clear that the lowest offer that the state was willing to make was eighteen years.

It is also clear that the petitioner rejected this offer, went to trial, and ultimately received a sentence of forty years suspended after the service of thirty years.

The petitioner now asserts that the reason he rejected this offer is because of the ineffective assistance of his attorneys.

Now, the Court notes that there's no challenge whatsoever to the trial performance of the attorneys.   The only issue before this Court is the pretrial offer.

The attorneys, ck attorneys Photos and Beck testified that while they indeed felt the offer was high, they nevertheless conveyed it, explained it, fully evaluated the case, gave the petitioner all of the pros and cons and ensured that the decision as to whether to accept or reject the offer was that of the petitioner.

The petitioner, on the other hand, says that they promised him that he would get less if he went to trial.   There is, of course, a clear conflict in the testimony between the petitioner and his attorneys.

Now, the Court is going to give full credence to the testimony of Attorneys Photos and Beck. On the other hand, the petitioner is not going to-the Court is not finding the petitioner to be worthy of belief, and there are a multitude of reasons as to why the petitioner's credibility is flawed.

First of all, if one were to look at the positions of Mr. Beck and Mr. Photos versus that of the petitioner, it's clear that Mr. Beck and Mr. Photos have nothing to gain about coming in here and lying about what they told the petitioner.

The petitioner, on the other hand, has a great deal to gain.   Indeed, if Mr. Photos and Mr. Beck came in here to lie, then they might not only gain nothing, they would perhaps and most likely would if this Court believed that to be the case, lose their licenses to practice law.   So there is a serious disincentive for the attorneys to lie.   There is no disincentive for the petitioner to lie.

Secondly, the existence of the letters, particularly the letter written to Ms. Altberg, clearly indicate that it was the petitioner's position that he was not going to accept an offer of fourteen years.   He believed it to be too high.   He would rather go to trial and even face the possibility of a twenty to twenty-five year sentence.   He was willing to do eight.

The petitioner is a convicted felon, and this Court is aware of and attaches significance to the comments made by the trial judge about the petitioner lying at the suppression hearing.

All of these factors lead to the conclusion that the petitioner is not credible.   Consequently, this Court rejects his testimony.

Given that, it is clear from the testimony of Attorneys Beck and Photos that they in fact complied with all their ethical duties and all of their appropriate professional responsibility to the client.

In retrospect, of course, it turns out that the decision to reject an eighteen year plea offer was a big mistake on the part of the petitioner, but that is the way the system works.   The reason why pretrial offers are extended is that it saves the state a great deal of time, money and effort in having to put on a case.   It saves the victims having to come in to testify and to confront the person who damaged or injured them in a criminal action.

For the petitioner, there's a benefit of pleading guilty in that a guilty plea is often viewed as the first step on the road to rehabilitation.   None of those factors are present in this case because the petitioner elected to reject the pretrial offer.

Now, a Court will note, of course, and I'm going to note, of course, it is the petitioner's absolute constitutional right to take a case to trial even in the face of overwhelming evidence, even in the face of clear evidence of.   The petitioner has every right under our United States and State of Connecticut constitutions to demand that the state prove its case.

The petitioner is never under any obligation to accept a pretrial offer or to plead guilty.   The petitioner exercised his constitutional right to a trial.   There is no allegation that his rights at trial were in any way abridged.   Consequently, the petitioner had all of his constitutional rights guaranteed to him protected and afforded to him.   Any other issues raised in the petition are hereby denied because there was no proof submitted at this trial that would allow this Court to reach any finding as to those issues.   Consequently, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus shall be denied.

Stanley T. Fuger, J.

Fuger, S.T., J.