Perugini v. Warden (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

THE COURT:  The Court is prepared to rule.

The Court has heard the testimony of the witnesses, including the petitioner's testimony.

I have reviewed the transcripts and heard the arguments of the parties.   And, based on this, the Court finds that the petitioner has failed to prove his claims that his trial attorneys were ineffective.

As to the claims related to his plea:

The Petitioner, essentially, claims that Mr. Channing failed to meaningfully explain the plea offer of twelve years to him, and in particular failed to tell him that that plea could be rescinded.   On this point, the Court finds Mr. Channing's testimony credible, that he, in fact, told the petitioner that the offer of twelve years could be rescinded and would not stay on the table forever.   Mr. Channing believed that offer of twelve years was a good offer and he told the petitioner that he should accept it on several occasions, both when it first offered to the petitioner and later after Judge Damiani left Waterbury and was replaced by Judge Iannotti.

Judge Iannotti allowed the defendant a short window to accept prior Court offers that had been relayed to defendants.

Mr. Channing relayed this offer to the petitioner, again, of twelve years;  encouraged him to take it but the petitioner rejected the twelve-year offer hoping that he could get less time.   He did this knowingly and after the plea offer was meaningfully explained to him by Attorney Channing.

The petitioner then hired private counsel, Mr. Lafferty, for the express purpose of trying to get a lesser plea deal, less than the twelve years that had been offered to him not to go to trial.   This fact that he did not want a trial, he wanted a lesser plea, is supported by the testimony of the petitioner himself and Mr. Lafferty.   However, by then it was too late, as the twelve-year offer had been rescinded;  it was no longer on the table.   A new offer of fifteen years had been extended and ultimately the petitioner accepted that.   Although he wanted a lower plea offer, he accepted the fifteen years knowing that his ultimate exposure if he was found guilty by the jury was forty-five years.   He did so after being fully and thoroughly canvassed by the Court.

As to the claims regarding the witness identification:  This is pretrial matter that could have been raised by trial counsel had the petitioner chose to go to trial rather than to accept the plea offer.   It could have been raised as a motion to suppress before the jury was selected or even during jury selection, or by challenging the State's witness at trial.   This was not done because the petitioner chose to accept the plea offer of fifteen years, not because either counsel was ineffective.   And, because of this, not only were they ineffective, but the Court finds that the petitioner could not be prejudiced thereby.   Also with respect to this claim, the only relief that petitioner has requested on this claim, is that his sentence be vacated and he be given the twelve years that was originally offered and later rescinded, however;  that is not an appropriate for this claim.   The appropriate remedy would be to vacate the plea and have him go to trial;  this isn't want the petitioner is asking for.

Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to prove that either his counsel acted below the objective standard of reasonableness or that there was anything unreliable with respect to his plea.

The petition is denied on all remaining claims.

Susan Q. Cobb, Superior Court Judge

Cobb, Susan Quinn, J.