Perez v. USA
RULING & ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See attached Ruling for details. No certificate of appealability will issue. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 8/30/2017. (Rickevicius, L.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LUIS OMAR PEREZ,
JOHN TARASCIO, Warden, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:15cv641(RNC)
RULING AND ORDER
Petitioner, a Connecticut inmate proceeding pro se, brings
this action for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging his guilty-plea convictions for burglary,
assault and other offenses on the grounds that he was deprived
of his sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel
and the state failed to investigate other potential suspects in
violation of his right to substantive due process.
that follow, the petition is denied.
Petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim has
been rejected on the merits in state court in two detailed
opinions on the ground that petitioner failed to meet his burden
of proving prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
See Perez v. Commissioner, No. CV104003330S, 2012
WL 6634686 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 26, 2012), aff’d, 150 Conn.
App. 371, 374 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014).
Section 2254 permits
habeas relief on a claim adjudicated in state court only when
the state decision is (1) contrary to, or involves an
unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as
determined by the United States Supreme Court; or (2) based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts.
made this showing.
Petitioner has not
Indeed, the well-reasoned decisions of the
state courts correctly apply the Strickland test.
petitioner’s claim for relief based on the sixth amendment is
Respondent submits that petitioner cannot obtain relief on
his ineffective assistance of counsel claim because the right to
counsel provided by the sixth amendment did not apply at
petitioner’s probation violation proceeding, which led to the
convictions at issue here.
In adjudicating petitioner’s
ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the state courts appear
to have assumed that the sixth amendment right to counsel
It is unnecessary to decide whether the sixth
amendment right to counsel applied at petitioner’s probation
violation proceeding because, assuming it did, the state courts
have correctly rejected petitioner’s claim under Strickland.
Turning to the substantive due process claim, respondent
states that this claim has not been presented to a state court.
Ordinarily, petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state remedies
with regard to this claim would require that the claim be
dismissed pending further state court proceedings.
submits that the exhaustion requirement can be dispensed with
because the claim is clearly without merit in light of
petitioner’s guilty plea, which constituted a waiver of the
Accordingly, the petition is hereby denied.
The Clerk may
No certificate of appealability will issue.
So ordered this 30th day of August 2017.
Robert N. Chatigny
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?