Jan G. v. Commissioner of Correction

Summary

The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed in part a habeas court judgment granting relief to Jan G. The court held that trial counsel did not violate the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment autonomy right under McCoy v. Louisiana because counsel did not concede the petitioner’s guilt, and that counsel’s decision not to pursue a mental disease or defect defense was a reasonable trial strategy. The case involved convictions for murder and third-degree assault of an elderly person arising from an attack on the petitioner’s parents.

Holdings

1. Counsel did not violate the petitioner's Sixth Amendment autonomy right because counsel honored the petitioner's not-guilty plea, did not concede his guilt to the charged offenses, and pursued an extreme emotional disturbance defense as an alternative theory rather than conceding guilt.
2. Counsel was not constitutionally deficient in declining to pursue a mental disease or defect defense because the decision was a reasonable trial strategy based on the information available at the time, including conflicting psychological evidence and the apparent relationship between the petitioner's condition and voluntary cocaine use.
3. To the extent the habeas court found appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise a McCoy-based claim, that conclusion could not stand because trial counsel did not violate the petitioner's McCoy autonomy right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether trial counsel violated the petitioner's Sixth Amendment autonomy right under McCoy v. Louisiana by pursuing an extreme emotional disturbance defense over the petitioner's objection.
2. Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to pursue a mental disease or defect defense under General Statutes § 53a-13.
3. Whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise a McCoy-based autonomy claim.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded