Steven Stanley v. Warden (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The self-represented petitioner, Steven Stanley, brings this application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging sixteen challenges to his conviction.   The majority of these claims involve assertions of trial court improprieties or errors that occurred during the criminal trial, at which the petitioner also represented himself.   At the outset of the habeas trial held in this case on December 2, 2014, and in response to the respondent's motion for summary judgment (# 136), this court determined that these claims (# s 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) were barred by the doctrine of procedural default and, there being no cause and prejudice alleged or established, dismissed them.   See Saunders v. Commissioner of Correction, 137 Conn.App. 493, 498, 48 A.3d 728 (2012).¹

The petitioner's remaining claims (# s 2, 5, 14 and 16) assert prosecutorial improprieties during the criminal trial.   Although claims of prosecutorial misconduct may also be procedurally defaulted, the court determined that the claims asserted in this case required collateral evidence and, therefore, held a hearing on these remaining claims.   Essentially, the petitioner asserts that during his criminal trial a prosecutor approached witnesses, including his sons, his mother and his brother, outside of the courtroom and attempted to intimidate them by telling them that if they lied on the stand, they would be prosecuted.   In particular, the petitioner claims that as a result of this intimidation the witnesses failed to testify that the phone used to harass the victim was a family phone which the entire family had used and had access to.   In addition, the petitioner claims that the state withheld his phone records.

The court finds that the credible evidence produced at the trial established that the state produced to the petitioner, the petitioner's and the victim's phone records, and only used the victim's records at trial.   The court also finds that the witnesses were not threatened or intimidated by the state, and according to their testimony here, all testified truthfully at the criminal trial.   The reason that the information regarding the family phone was not introduced at the criminal trial, where the petitioner was self-represented, resulted from the petitioner's failure to ask the witnesses questions sufficient to elicit responses regarding the family's use of and access to family phone used to call the victim.   Even if such evidence had been elicited at the trial, the court finds that it would not have made any difference to the outcome.

Accordingly, the petitioner has failed to prove his claims, and the petition is denied.

Cobb, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Because the petitioner represented himself at the criminal trial, he cannot allege cause and prejudice by virtue of his counsel's ineffectiveness.   See Saunders v. Commissioner, supra.   However, such assertions could not be made here because the petitioner represented himself at trial.   See State v. Oliphant, 47 Conn.App. 271, 281, 702 A.2d 1206, (1997), cert. denied, 244 Conn. 904, 714 A.2d 3 (1998) ( “[O]nce a defendant has properly embarked on the path of self-representation, his constitutional right to counsel ceases”)..  FN1. Because the petitioner represented himself at the criminal trial, he cannot allege cause and prejudice by virtue of his counsel's ineffectiveness.   See Saunders v. Commissioner, supra.   However, such assertions could not be made here because the petitioner represented himself at trial.   See State v. Oliphant, 47 Conn.App. 271, 281, 702 A.2d 1206, (1997), cert. denied, 244 Conn. 904, 714 A.2d 3 (1998) ( “[O]nce a defendant has properly embarked on the path of self-representation, his constitutional right to counsel ceases”).

Cobb, Susan Quinn, J.