Lozada v. Warden, State Prison

In Lozada v. Warden, State Prison, 223 Conn. 834, 613 A.2d 818 (Conn. 1992), the appellant filed a second petition for habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in his first habeas corpus proceeding. Connecticut provides by statute for the appointment of counsel for an indigent person "in any habeas corpus proceeding arising from a criminal matter..." Lodoza, 223 Conn. 834, 613 A.2d 818 at 821. The State asserted that there was no right to effective assistance of habeas corpus counsel "because there is no statutory reference to the qualifications of counsel and, therefore, no remedy is available should counsel prove ineffective." Id. The court disagreed with that argument, holding that "it would be absurd to have the right to appointed counsel who is not required to be competent." Id. It went on to state that the Strickland standard applied to evaluate counsel's performance. Lodoza, 223 Conn. 834, 613 A.2d 818 at 823.