text:
23848 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Genesis 1 reads as follows:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. 6 Then God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters." 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 Then God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good. 11 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth"; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day. 14 Then God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. 20 Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens." 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind"; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." 29 And God said, "See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food"; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
This passage explains how the world began. It explains a lot of things that most people over look. If people would look to Genesis 1, then a lot of debates and ideas would be diminished. One big idea that can be diminished by this passage is the idea of old vs. new creationists.
If you don't know what old and new creationists are, here is a breif summary. old creationists believe that God created the world, but that the world is billions of years old. they say that between each thing that God created, there was a gap of some millions of years. New creationists believe that God created the world, but that it is only 6000 - 8000 years old. they believe that each creation was made one day after the other. here are my thoughts on the matter:
In Genesis 1:3-5 It says
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
God created light and He created what we consider one day. after evening and morning elapsed, one day had pasted. after each time God created something it states how many days had pasted. it even specifies that evening and morning had passed. I don't see how anyone could get that confused to something like,
well God said one day had passed. he must be talking about a couple million years = one day. sense God doesnt talk about time the same way we do then we cant go by 1 day = 1 day.
well i'm here to tell you that 1 day did = 1 day. God siad that 1 day had pasted, even down to specifically saying that evening and morning had pasted. this would be sufficient evidence to believe that God did mean 1 day is 1 day.
another topic that i thought of was sort of unusual, but is a lesson i think should be shared. It comes from Genesis 1:27
27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
and in Genesis 1:31
31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
these passages state when God created human beings. When He created them, He created them in His own image. this is to say that God put tried his best to make us perfect. and then after He created us He said/thought, and indeed it was very good. taken from those passages we can see that God made us according to His likeness. unfortunately we lost our perfection when Adam and Eve sinned, as stated in Genesis 3.
now, 6000 and some years later we are going through life putting on fancy clothing, makeup, and jewelry to make us look better. this is wrong. God tells us not to adorn ourselves. when we try to make ourselves look pretty, we only make ourselves more like the image of mankind. i don't know about you, but i would much rather look as God intended for me to look, rather than what mankind think is beautiful.
so for all of you out there that spend all your time trying to look good, maybe you should consider looking in the mirror sometime, and seeing the image that God intended for you to have. the image that God thought was indeed good.
Brief comment to Genesis I: God's people in the Old Testament were constantly going astray and being punished by God. Some of God's methods were rather gross as when the earth swallowed many of them up and another time when they were bitten by poisonous serpents. God fortold of Our Savious lifted on a cross to save us as He saved those looking upon the golden serpent.
Now! Back to chess people: what is the best way for me to become a stronger player?
i know. that would be part of the problem. back in the biblical days people dressed in a lot of expensive clothing, usually with jewelry all over, kinda like what you would see in old pictures of kings and queens (at least thats how i picture it). now people tend to dress in too little clothing which reveals parts that shouldnt be revealed.
i guess i can understand that then, but it says modest, yet people wear pricey clothing and wear gold and pearls as it says not to
God does care what we look like. 1 Timothy 2:9-10 says
9 in like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, 10 but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works.
sure does sound like God cares about how we dress to me.
that doesnt make much sense, we have been taught that God doesnt care about how we look, or what we wear, or what we own. So looking modest is only to please the other people around us who dont believe the exact same way we do. But are we supposed to change the way we look so we can please others for our religion, or would that be wrong?
no. the big bang theory cannot b combined with genisis 1.
we look better when we go to church to show respect. we dont have to but we choose to anyway. for most people, if u went to church in ur everyday clothes u would look very indecent and wouldnt look too modest.
would it be possible to combine genesis 1 with the universal idea of the big bang theory? and then at the end you said we shouldnt adorn ourselves, what about when we go to church? people "dress-up" for that and yet no one ever says anything? should we go to church in our "good" clothes or what we wear everyday?
Even though this IS a chess site, I'm still willing to have an open mind.
The question of how old is the Earth is one that most people will never agree.
Of greater importance to me are the questions having to do with one's belief in God. Once that comes to mind, what is His message to us in the Bible? It is plain that "all the prophets and commandments testify to one thing"...love you neighbor as yourself. By that alone you glorify God.
1. This is a chess site. My brain now hurts from having read this. 2. The universe is not 6,000 years old. Earth is not 6,000 years old. That's not even enough time for the human race to have populated as much as it has (and anyway that claim is stabbing geology in the face).
3. Our desire to adorn ourselves with whatever culture dictates is attractive is to be human because we are mammals. Birds do it with colors or decorative nests. Monkey's do it. Dogs do it. We're all out to attract mates. People dont have feathers, we have clothes.
4. Citing the bible is meaningless unless you believe such things. If one is to even heed your argument they would need to believe your references are credible. Maybe you should try a logic based argument to appeal to a broader audience and stop preaching on this wonderful chess community, whom hail from every nation across the world with every religion there is out there.
5. To continue would be harassment and that's not my intention. Infact my intention was to debate for the sake of debating. Have a good day.
it is also important to note that the verse in 2 Peter that says with God one thousand years = one day, wasn't revealed until the NT. why would God deceive His chosen people, the Israelites, for however long the book of Genesis had been around to lead them to believe that it was one day, then change His mind and say it was a thousand years?
jte8944United States
View complete profile
Navigating the Maze by Walt Disney
by jte8944 7 years ago
Our Greatest Fear by Marianne Williamson
Genisis 1
Stop and take a look
Home |
Why Join | Chess Topics |
About |
FAQs |
Help & Support |
Site Map
Privacy Policy |
Legal |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
Try the new Chess.com!
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!


text:
DETROIT -- Jonas Gustavsson's troublesome groin flared up again following the Detroit Red Wings' 7-4 victory over the New Jersey Devils Friday, forcing the club to recall goaltender Petr Mrazek from the Grand Rapids Griffins.
Mrazek will back-up Jimmy Howard for Sunday's game at the New York Rangers (12:30 p.m., ABC).
This is the third time this season Gustavsson has been idled by a sore groin. He Missed four games at the start of the season and nine more from Dec. 30 to Jan. 20 with the same issue, one that plagued him much of last season.
He also missed three games from Nov. 1-4 with a stiff neck.
When Gustavsson has been healthy, he's played well, going 15-4-3, with a 2.54 goals-against average and .912 save percentage.
Mrazek, 22, is 1-3, with a 1.64 GAA and .924 save percentage with the Red Wings this season. The win was his first career shutout, 5-0 at Edmonton, on Nov. 2.
Mrazek is 18-5-1, with a 2.01 GAA and .928 save percentage for the Griffins.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
MINNEAPOLIS -- There is still work to do and hurdles to cross, but Detroit Tigers manager Brad Ausmus is hopeful right-hander Anibal Sanchez will be ready to return to the starting rotation next weekend in Chicago.
Sanchez threw Saturday and will throw again Monday in Detroit during the team's off day. If things go well Monday, Sanchez will throw off a mound Wednesday.
The Tigers will determine his status at that point, but Ausmus said he could not rule out the possibility that Sanchez could start Saturday during a doubleheader against the Chicago White Sox.
The rotation has cleared up a bit after Justin Verlander threw more than 100 pitches Saturday night in an 8-6 win over the Minnesota Twins after missing his previous turn in the rotation with a shoulder issue. Here is the rotation moving forward:
Yankees at Tigers
Tuesday: Rick Porcello
Wednesday: David Price
Thursday: TBD
Tigers at Chicago White Sox
Friday: Justin Verlander
Saturday: Max Scherzer and TBD
Sunday: Rick Porcello
The "TBD" for Thursday will almost certainly turn into Kyle Lobstein's first career start. Lobstein made his major-league debut Saturday in the first game of a doubleheader against the Twins.
The "TBD" for Sunday will either be Sanchez or a call-up from the minor leagues. The most likely candidates for that spot would be Robbie Ray or Buck Farmer, who were both rocked in starts this weekend against the Twins.
-- Download the Detroit Tigers on MLive app for iPhone and Android.
-- Like MLive's Detroit Tigers Facebook page.


text:
St. John's beats Albany 2-1 on last-minute goal
Defenceman Ben Chiarot scored with 23 seconds remaining in the contest to give the St. John's IceCsps a 2-1 win over the Albany Devils in the opening game of their best-of-five American Hockey League Eastern Conference quarter-final Friday night in Albany, N.Y.
Ben Chiarot
Game 2 is Saturday night in Albany, N.Y., with an 8:30 p.m NT start time,
Zach Redmond and Andrew Gordon drew assists on Ben Chiarot's shot from the point.
Eric O'Dell of St. John's opened the scoring with the teams playing four-on-four in the first period. Joe Whitney tied it for Albany on a power play early in the second.
Goalie Muchael Hutchinson made 25 saves for the IceCaps, who had 32 shots on the Devils' Keith Kinkaid.


text:
The last set of screens for crime sim Omerta: City of Gangsters focused on the gangster part of the game; today's focus on the city part.
In the 14 new shots you see here, some stunning architecture is on display, and also quality art design that does a lot to evoke the atmosphere of 1920's Atlantic City.
Omerta, if you're new, mixes city building with tactical turn-based combat to represent all the cornerstones of the gangster life at the time, and is developed by Haemimont Games -- the same folks behind the excellent Tropico games.


text:
bag of holding
|Nov 12, 2011
|adds a bag of holding to your inventory, so all the packrats out there can keep hoarding
Nude Females - Barbie Doll
|Nov 12, 2011
|sigh* I was wondering if it was possible, and it was. And now I'd feel bad if I didn't release. This mod removes the underwear. You will look like a barbie doll (no nipples or other parts). I have no desire to make textures for this, so someone else will have to edit them if they want that (edit the textures included in this mod, not the originals, as I had some issues using the original textures).
Magic/items left-right hand
|Nov 12, 2011
|Mod for assign magic or item to left/righ hand. Choose item you want and press LEFT or RIGHT at you NUMPAD. Middle mouse button-arm/disarm Press "C" to approach item in inventory mod created by eliotcougar. Unpack to you game directory. http://www.skyrimforge.com/media/files/552/210/Skyrim-pc-controls.zip
Skip Bethesda intro
|Nov 13, 2011
|Completely skips Bethesda intro at start of game! Installation Place 'BGS_Logo.bik' in [Skyrim installation folder]/Data/Video and replace the old file. - Enjoy :) Mod by: Kenney Vleugels www.kenney.nl
Master of Blades
|Nov 13, 2011
|Master of Blades This mod add several new weapons! In progress... @14.11 Well, I did one model and now I am doing texture. I want to ask you two questions. How has the weapon to gain? How do you prefer? Write a comment.
Nightmares of the Priest
|Nov 13, 2011
|Quest Overview: A simple job to recover some Antique Armour from a ruined Temple soon leads to the death of your employer after it's recovery and now you start recurring haunting nightmare of a long dead Priest. Each morning that you awake from the nightmare you feel physically weaker. Is the nightmare slowly killing you? Can you save yourself from the same fate of your employer? Quest Information: A intricate 7 stage quest line involving puzzle solving, combat and exploration. Designed for...
Loading Game
|Nov 15, 2011
|Play a game while loading a game! This is obviously not for people with SSD drives or super fast computers, but while travelling through Skyrim you'll encounter lots of loading screens. This will make loading a little more fun! Use spacebar to start and shoot, arrow keys to move. No gamepad support yet! Installation Place 'loadingmenu.swf' in [Skyrim installation folder]/Data/Interface Uninstallation Simply remove the file! - Enjoy :) Mod by: Kenney Vleugels www.kenney.nl
I Wash - New Skin for Skyrim
|Nov 15, 2011
|"I Wash" Skyrim Skin Mod by Blocky (Aed) Description Gets rid of 90% of the dirt, moles, zits, bruises, insects, and ingrown hairs on all male characters in the game. A similar mod by another author already exists for females. Installation: 1. Extract the "textures" folder and put it in your Skyrim/Data/ folder. 2. There is no second step. Grats your character washes! User Review http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KvngfbiRh6o @1:16 by MMOxReview
Skip intro in new game
|Nov 15, 2011
|Fed up with wasting 6 minutes of bla-bla-bla when want to start from scratch? Here is solution: savegame right before appearance selection. How to install: Unzip downloaded file to %UserDocuments%\My Games\Skyrim\Saves\
Antiallias and sharpen effect
|Nov 15, 2011
|The sharpen effect is applied by default. To deactive sharpen effect : open shader.fx and scroll till you see : #include "Sharpen.h" Put 2 // in the begining of the line. = //#include "Sharpen.h" INSTALL: Extract the content inside the D3D9 folder to The install dir. Where the executable is. Usually here: Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\skyrim PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROBLEM WITH CRASHING READ HERE: It seems that Fps monitoring programs and tray tools such as ati tray tools cause the game...
Skyrim Better Performance
|Nov 15, 2011
|[User @nix9862 was not allowed to upload my file to nexus, please retain from downloading it from there.] Fus Ro Dah! You run oblivion on highest settings? Skyrim only on High or Medium with annoying freezes or lags? This file is for you! You can jump from Medium to Ultra in less than 1 minute! Quick Update - 3/25/2013 Skyrim Better Performance works now with LATEST version of Skyrim [5 - 7 FPS Gain]** History: I was encountering lags on High settings with old .dll file, So i decided to make...
DorkDiva elf eye pack
|Nov 15, 2011
|This replaces the elf eye textures with slit pupil varieties, more will be available upon release of the CK. Drop the data folder into the Skyrim directory.
Glass Weapon Set Recolor WIP
|Nov 16, 2011
|Updated Current Colors: Magma Red Orange - Blue Hilt Emerald - Bone White Hilt ( I made this one much less "glowy") Obsidian - Silverish Hilt (Not glowy) -------- Coming Colors: Bone White Blade with undecided color hilt Aqua Blue with undecided color hilt -------- About: Doing this set to have some nice looking weapons in the game when you get bored with the standard weapon sets. I will be doing the entire glass weapon set at some point, the greatsword is next, will be uploaded to this and I...
Dragonscale Armor Recolor - 4 Sets Complete
|Nov 17, 2011
|Update Log: Added Ice/Blue Version/ Added Dark Emerald Version/ Added White Version/ All Female versions Coming soon: None, finished Recolored the base Dragonscale Armor set because I thought it looked like crap compared to Daedric. This is more of a personal recolor, since I did it with only me in mind. But if you all want me to recolor this in a specific manner let me know and I might do it. Inlcuded in this are the 4 different, 5 piece armor textures which I recolored. Just drop these...
World Map in Full 3D
|Nov 17, 2011
|Mod changes camera controls in ingame world map view so it becomes possible to zoom in almost to the ground and explore area around character in full detail. Watch video to see the result. Troubleshooting 1. Game doesn't start or crashes on save load - remove lines with uLockedObjectMapLOD and uLockedTerrainLOD (this may lower objects and terrain detail on the map) 2. Love clouds? Then remove line that contains sMapCloudNIF
River View Home
|Nov 17, 2011
|RiverView Player Home Overview This mod will provide a player owned home near the town of Riverwood after completing a small quest. The home is suited for Hunters and Delvers a like and will feature ample storage and display space for your items. Layout First Floor Foyer Main entrance to the home Decorative weapon mounts Great Room Hearth Seating Area Shield Mounts Pantry Food Storage Sorted Food Display Kitchen Cooking Area Storage Working Sink Dinning Hall Seating for 6 Display Cabinet for...
Aurane + Sonja - Savegames
|Nov 18, 2011
|---------------------------- Aurane + Sonja - Savegames by pLAN_S ( former zipfile ) ---------------------------- 2 female characters. Screenshots included. Enjoy. /pLAN_S exclusively on skyrimforge.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------- YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO UPLOAD THIS ON THE NEXUS-NETWORK, THIS INCLUDES SKYRIMNEXUS, NEWVEGASNEXUS, OR ANY OTHER OF THEIR SITES. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Spider Webs
|Nov 18, 2011
|Spider webs removed or replaced with moss.
Glass Weapons - Obsidian
|Nov 18, 2011
|As always, suggestions are welcome, post in the comments. And if there is something you don't like, tell me! I will fix any issue that is found. Current Weapons: 1H Sword Greatsword Dagger Arrow/Quiver Hand Axe Hammer Mace Bow Battle Axe Install: Just drop the texture folder into the Skyrim Data folder.
Display time on loading screen
|Nov 18, 2011
|Display analog and digital clock of computer time on loading screens, you can change options (showAnalog, twelveHourClock, showLevelProgressPercentage, showHints, showLevelProgress and showTime). Installation 1. Place 'loadingmenu.swf' and 'loadingmenu_settings.txt' in [Skyrim installation folder]/Data/Interface 2. Change the settings in 'loadingmenu_settings.txt' to your liking. Uninstallation Remove 'loadingmenu.swf' and 'loadingmenu_settings.txt' from [Skyrim installation...


text:
Tyrone King # 114309 v. Warden
The principal issue in this habeas action is whether trial counsel of the petitioner, Tyrone King, was ineffective in failing to meaningfully explain the state's plea offers and the risks of going to trial, and if so, whether the petitioner was prejudiced. For the reasons that follow, the court finds that issue for the petitioner.
The petitioner was convicted, after a jury trial, of one count of sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a–277(a) and one count of sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a–278a(b). The petitioner was acquitted of one count of illegal sale of narcotics by a non-drug-dependent person in violation of General Statutes § 21a–278(b). On January 31, 2005, the petitioner was sentenced to thirteen years incarceration followed by five years special parole to run consecutively to the sentence the petitioner was serving on a parole violation.
The petitioner did not take a timely appeal of his conviction. On December 27, 2006, the petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that his trial counsel, assistant public defender Heather Abel, was ineffective in failing to preserve his right to appeal his conviction. On April 19, 2006, the habeas court granted the petition and ordered the petitioner's right to appeal from his conviction restored. King v. Warden, Docket No. CV 06–4000887, Judicial District of Tolland. The petitioner then appealed his conviction, and on November 18, 2008, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. State v. King, 289 Conn. 496, 958 A.2d 731 (2008).
On January 7, 2009, the petitioner filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he alleges that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to adequately advise him regarding the state's plea offer of three and one-half years, which was to run concurrent to the sentence he was serving on parole violations. He also claims trial counsel was ineffective with respect to certain aspects of her conduct at trial. The petitioner filed a pre-trial brief on September 6, 2011. The court heard evidence on September 14 and 15, 2011. The parties filed post-trial briefs on October 4 and 11, 2011.1
The Connecticut Supreme Court set forth the facts underlying the petitioner's convictions as follows:
On the night of June 28, 2004, the tactical narcotics team (team) of the Bridgeport police department initiated a narcotics investigation in the area of Washington Avenue and Sanford Place in Bridgeport. The team targeted the area for investigation because it was considered a "high drug area" in which narcotics officers previously had made numerous drug related arrests. Clive Higgins, an undercover officer assigned to the team, testified that his role in the investigation was to purchase drugs. Higgins was equipped with a listening device that enabled other team members to monitor his activity.
At approximately 10 p.m., Higgins approached the defendant, who was located on the corner of Washington Avenue and Sanford Place, and asked where he could "get some ․ slabs." Higgins explained to the jury that a slab is a "ziplocked [bag] containing narcotics or cocaine." The defendant then told Higgins, "I'll take you to my man," and asked Higgins how many slabs he wanted. After Higgins requested two slabs, he accompanied the defendant to a building located at 40 Sanford Place.
William Reilly, the officer who was assigned to watch Higgins and to monitor his conversations by way of the listening device, saw Higgins and the defendant enter the building and he heard "footsteps going up stairs." Higgins and the defendant proceeded to the fourth floor of the building, where the defendant knocked on the only door without an apartment number. When the occupant of the apartment opened the door, the defendant instructed Higgins to give the defendant money. Higgins handed the defendant a marked $20 bill, after which the defendant entered the apartment alone and closed the door. While the defendant was in the apartment, Higgins used the listening device to transmit information about his location to other officers on the team. A few seconds later, the defendant exited the apartment and handed Higgins two clear ziplock bags containing a white substance. Reilly saw Higgins and the defendant leave 40 Sanford Place together, and Higgins then signaled to Reilly that he was in possession of drugs.
Orlando Rosado, another officer on the team, subsequently arrested the defendant, and he retrieved a crack pipe from the defendant when the defendant was brought to police headquarters. The white substance that the defendant handed to Higgins proved to be 0.143 grams of crack cocaine.
State v. King, supra, 289 Conn. 499–501.
The court makes the following findings of fact. The defendant was initially charged in a short-form information with (1) conspiracy to commit sale of certain illegal drugs in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 and 21a–278(b); (2) conspiracy to commit sale of controlled substances within 1500 feet of a school in violation of §§ 53a–48 and 21a–278a(b); and (3) use of drug paraphernalia in violation of General Statutes § 21a–267(a). He pleaded not guilty to those charges on September 14, 2004 and elected a trial by jury.
When the petitioner was arrested, he was on parole, having received a sentence of six years, 365 days imposed in 2000. As a result of the new arrest in this case, the petitioner violated his parole, and was returned to prison on the prior convictions to complete that sentence. Thus, while awaiting trial in this case, the petitioner was a sentenced prisoner and was not receiving jail credit toward any sentence he might receive in this case.
Abel was appointed to represent the petitioner after his arraignment on June 29, 2004. Abel knew that the petitioner was a sentenced prisoner, having been on parole when he was arrested. She recalled receiving the file, getting the police report and other documents, and conducting an investigation by going to the scene of the petitioner's arrest. The petitioner told Abel that he did not sell the drugs to the undercover police officer but was drug dependent at the time of his arrest and brought the police officer to the seller in exchange for cocaine to support his drug habit.
Although she recalled that she met with the petitioner a number of times in the lock up at the Bridgeport courthouse, she did not recall the substance of those meetings. Abel did not make any notations as to when or where she met with the petitioner nor did she take any contemporaneous notes or prepare file memoranda of what occurred or what was discussed during meetings with the petitioner.
On August 31, 2004, the state offered the petitioner a plea of four years concurrent to the sentence he was then serving. The petitioner did not recall that Abel conveyed this offer to him. Abel had no recollection of whether she relayed this offer to the petitioner or whether she discussed it with him. The best Abel could say was that it was her general practice to convey plea offers to her clients, inform them of their ultimate exposure on the charges, and explain the benefits and risks of going to trial.
On October 29, 2004, the petitioner filed a pro se motion for a speedy trial. On November 8, 2004, Abel filed a motion for a speedy trial on the petitioner's behalf. Also, on November 8, 2004, the state filed an amended long-form information charging the petitioner with: (1) count one, sale of narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of § 21a–278(b); (2) count two, sale of narcotics in violation of § 21a–277(a); and (3) count three, sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a–278a(b).2 All three counts of the amended information alleged that the petitioner, as principal, "sold, dispensed or gave a certain narcotic substance, to wit: crack cocaine, to Undercover Police Office ․" The state's theory of the case was that the petitioner sold narcotics or facilitated a sale of narcotics to an undercover police officer in what is commonly referred to as a "buy and bust" operation.
On November 17, 2004, the trial court denied the petitioner's pro se motion but granted Abel's motion for a speedy trial, and ordered that jury selection commence on December 6, 2004.
Prior to jury selection, the state made a second plea offer to the petitioner of three and one-half (3 1/2) years concurrent to the sentence the petitioner was then serving. Abel notified the petitioner of the state's offer of 3 1/2 years. Although Abel believed she explained and discussed the plea offer with the petitioner, she did not recall doing so.
Abel informed the petitioner of this plea offer. She told him that in order to pursue his defense that he did not "sell" the drugs to the undercover officer, he would probably have to testify. If he testified, he would be impeached with his prior criminal record and the jury would likely believe the police officer's testimony and not the petitioner's. However, Abel did not explain that (1) the drug dependency defense was only a defense to the charge of sale by a non-drug dependent person under § 21a–278(b); (2) he could accept the plea offer under the Alford 3 doctrine without admitting the facts, or (3) he could be found guilty as an accessory, even though he was charged as a principal. As to the accessory issue, Abel did not understand accessory liability to be an issue in the case or that the state would proceed under a theory of accessory liability. Had the petitioner known this information, including his maximum exposure would be 23 rather than 18 years consecutive as discussed below, such knowledge would have changed his decision to go to trial and he would have accepted the state's plea offer of 3 1/2 years concurrent to the sentence he was already serving.
Prior to trial, Abel had the petitioner sign a written document entitled "notification of plea bargain." It was Abel's practice to prepare this document herself and have her clients sign such a document prior to going to trial, after a plea offer was rejected. The notification in the petitioner's case was dated December 1, 2004, and signed by the petitioner and Abel. It provided as follows:
I, Tryon [sic] King hereby acknowledge that my attorney has informed me that the last plea bargain offer by the State Attorney's office is 3 1/2 years concurrent to the sentence I am now serving on the charge of Sale of Narcotics.
I also understand if I am convicted on the all the [sic] charges the state has filed that my maximum exposure would be 15 years and 8 of those years are mandatory minimum sentences.
I am aware of all of these facts and wish to assert my right to a jury trial.
(Italics emphasis added.)
The notification contained erroneous information and omitted important information. The notification incorrectly stated the petitioner's maximum exposure as "15 years and 8 of those years are mandatory minimum sentences." It is undisputed that under the amended information, dated November 8, 2004, the petitioner's maximum exposure was twenty-three (23) years—eight (8) more years than Abel told the petitioner.4 In addition, Abel did not specify in the notification that the maximum sentence, or whatever sentence was received, could be made to run consecutive to the sentence the petitioner was then serving.5
The case proceeded to trial. During jury selection, the state made a third offer to the petitioner. The state's offer was written on a blank piece of paper that the state handed to Abel in the courtroom when the parties were each seated at counsel table while in the process of picking the jury. The note suggested four possible plea options: "(1) 3 1/2 or (2) 3, 3 Sp Parole or (3) 2 1/2, 5 Sp. Parole or (4) 2 yr, 1 day, 7 sp p. Based on this guy's record it's more than fair. Offer gone when next juror picked."
Although Abel believes that she discussed this third series of offers with the petitioner in a room in the courthouse, she does not recall doing so. The petitioner recalled that Abel slid the prosecutor's handwritten offers to him during jury selection, but that he and Abel did not discuss them.
Abel tried to persuade the defendant to accept one of the various plea offers because she believed that the state had a strong case, due to the petitioner's facilitation of the drug sale and his criminal history, which could be introduced into evidence if the petitioner testified at trial. Abel also believed that there was a strong possibility that the jury would believe the police officer.
It was Abel's general view that if a client wants a trial, she would try the case. Although she generally tells her clients candidly what she thinks of a case and what she would do in a case, she did not "brow beat" them or "twist their arms" to accept the plea. Rather, she would simply give her clients the information and let them decide whether to plea or go to trial. She recalled that the petitioner did not want to plead to a sale charge because he believed he was not selling drugs at the time.
The case proceeded to trial and the defendant testified in his own defense.6 The defense strategy was to show that the petitioner was drug dependent at the time of his arrest, and that the petitioner did not intend to and did not sell the cocaine, but rather helped the undercover officer in locating the third-party seller in exchange for drugs for his personal use. The state sought and received, over Abel's objection, a charge of accessory liability.
On December 15, 2004, the jury rendered a verdict acquitting the defendant of count one alleging sale of narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent and finding him guilty of the remaining two counts, illegal sale of narcotics and illegal sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school. The trial court rendered a judgment of conviction as to the two counts, and on January 31, 2005, the trial court imposed a sentence of ten years, followed by five years special parole for the conviction of sale of narcotics (count two) and a three-year nonsuspendable sentence on possession within 1500 feet of a school (count three), to be served consecutively. The total effective sentence imposed by the trial court was thirteen years of incarceration followed by five years special parole.
At the sentencing hearing, the state misinformed the court as to the petitioner's maximum exposure on the two convictions. Although the petitioner had prior convictions for sale and possession, he was not charged in a part B information as a subsequent offender. The state incorrectly informed the trial court that because the petitioner had prior drug convictions, he was exposed to a maximum sentence of thirty (30) years under § 21a–277, and three (3) nonsuspendable years on the sale within 1500 feet of a school conviction under § 21a–278a(b). The state asked the court to impose the maximum sentence of 33 years. The court accepted the state's misrepresentation of the petitioner's maximum possible sentence of thirty-three (33) years. Abel did not object to the state's error, attempt to correct the record or inform the court that the actual maximum sentence that could be imposed was actually eighteen (18) years, fifteen (15) years on the conviction for sale of narcotics under § 21a–277, and three (3) years mandatory time on the conviction for sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school under § 21a–278a(b). In fact, during the sentencing, Abel, herself, referred to the petitioner's maximum sentence incorrectly as thirty-three (33) years.
Prior to imposing the sentence, the trial court explained that it did not intend to impose the maximum sentence. The court then imposed a sentence of thirteen (13) years incarceration, ten (10) years on count two, sale of narcotics, and three (3) years mandatory minimum time on count three, sale near a school. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutive, for a total of 13 years, followed by 5 years special parole. Adding the petitioner's prison and special parole time, the sentence imposed was eighteen (18) years. Eighteen (18) years was, in fact, the maximum sentence the petitioner faced on his two convictions—fifteen (15) years for illegal sale of narcotics under § 21a–277a and three (3) years for illegal sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school under § 21a–278(a). The sentence imposed by the trial court of eighteen (18) years, including five (5) years special parole, is three (3) years more than the fifteen (15) years trial counsel informed the petitioner he could receive on the charges in the December 1, 2004 notification.
The petitioner's present release date is December 19, 2019, followed by 5 years special parole.
Following the imposition of the sentence, the petitioner indicated his intent to appeal his conviction by signing the court form entitled "Notice of Right to Appeal Judgment of Conviction," at his sentencing on July 31, 2005. No appeal, however, was timely filed by Abel. On December 27, 2005, the petitioner brought his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed trial counsel was ineffective in failing to file a timely appeal.
The petitioner also filed a grievance with the Fairfield Judicial District Grievance Panel, which found probable cause that Abel had violated certain rules of professional conduct. The matter was referred to the Statewide Grievance Committee and on May 11, 2006, the Committee sustained the complaint against Abel on one count, finding that she violated Rule 1.3 by failing to maintain file copies of certain important documents, including the appeal. Tyrone King v. Heather A. Abel, Grievance Complaint # 05–1117. The Committee concluded: "It is of course prudent that an attorney keep copies of all documents filed in court on behalf of any client. When that client is in the situation faced by the Complaint—indigent, incarcerated and in need of a public defender to file an appeal—it is axiomatic that the lawyer make copies of such important filings." Id.
On April 19, 2006, the petitioner's first habeas petition was resolved by stipulated judgment, in which the parties agreed that the petitioner's right to appeal should be restored. On July 5, 2006, the petitioner filed an appeal of his conviction, and on November 18, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the petitioner's convictions. State v. King, supra, 289 Conn. 499. This petition for writ of habeas corpus followed.
In the amended petition, the petitioner claims that Abel's performance was deficient during the pretrial stage of the proceedings, in that she: (1) failed to meet with and properly advise the petitioner with respect to the state's offers of a plea bargain and with respect to the risks that petitioner took by choosing to contest the state's allegations at trial; (2) rejected the state's offers without first obtaining informed consent from the petitioner; and (3) failed to maintain a file that accurately and adequately reflected the process by which she advised the petitioner and accepted his decision to reject the state's offers. He claims that had Abel performed reasonably the case would have been different in that he would have accepted the state's plea offer and served a drastically shorter sentence.
The petitioner also claims that his trial counsel acted unreasonably during the trial by failing to: (1) object to the trial court's jury charge on accessorial liability; (2) present a defense to certain counts of the information; (3) confront the state's witnesses effectively on cross-examination; and (4) present a proper summation to the jury. By way of relief, the petitioner seeks reversal of the judgment, and the opportunity to plead guilty.
The United States Supreme Court has established a two-prong test that the petitioner must prove to establish an ineffective assistance claim: (1) that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) that counsel's deficient performance prejudiced the defense because there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different had it not been for the deficient performance. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Ham v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 697, 703–04, 23 A.3d 682 (2011).
The Connecticut Supreme Court has explained that: "The first prong requires a showing that 'counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the [s]ixth [a]mendment.' " Johnson v. Commissioner, 285 Conn. 556, 575, 941 A.2d 248 (2008) quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Under the second prong of the test, prejudice, the petitioner must show that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is unreliable. Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 687; Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn.App. 560, 992 A.2d 1200, 2010, cert. granted 297 Conn. 912, 995 A.2d 954 (2010). Ultimately, the "benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 686.
Here, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel failed to provide effective assistance in advising him as to whether to accept the state's plea offer. It is well established that "[a] criminal defendant is constitutionally entitled to adequate and effective assistance of counsel at all critical stages of criminal proceedings. Strickland v. Washington, [466 U.S. 686]. This right arises under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. Baez v. Commissioner of Correction, 34 Conn.App. 236, 242–43, 641 A.2d 147, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 905, 906, 648 A.2d 149 (1994). Pretrial negotiations implicating the decision of whether to plead guilty is a critical stage in criminal proceedings; Colson v. Smith, 438 F.2d 1075, 1078 (5th Cir.1971); and plea bargaining is an integral component of the criminal justice system and essential to the expeditious and fair administration of our courts. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977); see Statewide Grievance Committee v. Whitney, 227 Conn. 829, 842, 633 A.2d 296 (1993). '[Plea bargaining] leads to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and, by shortening the time between charge and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned.' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Statewide Grievance Committee v. Whitney, supra, 842." Copas v. Commissioner of Correction, 234 Conn. 139, 153–54, 662 A.2d 718 (1995).
The decision to plead guilty is "ordinarily the most important single decision in any criminal case." Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 120 Conn.App. 572, quoting Boria v. Keane, 99 F.3d 492, 496–97 (2d Cir.1996), cert. denied, 521 U.S. 1118, 117 S.Ct. 2508, 138 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1997). "Although this decision [to plead guilty] is ultimately made by the defendant, the defendant's attorney must make an informed evaluation of the options and determine which alternative will offer the defendant the most favorable outcome. A defendant relies heavily upon counsel's independent evaluation of the charges and defenses, applicable law, the evidence and the risks and probable outcome of a trial ․ Siemon v. Stoughton, 184 Conn. 547, 556 n.3, 440 A.2d 210 (1981)." Copas v. Commissioner, supra, 234 Conn. 154.
Turning to the first prong of the Strickland test, the court must determine if Abel's performance in advising the petitioner regarding the plea offers fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. To satisfy this performance prong of the test, the petitioner must show that "his attorney's representation was not reasonably competent or within the range of competence displayed by lawyers of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law." Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 120 Conn.App. 567, quoting Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 830, 834–35, 970 A.2d 721 (2009).
Three recent Appellate Court decisions have determined that a trial attorney's failure to properly and meaningfully advise the petitioner regarding whether to accept a plea offer, constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn.App. 543, 851 A.2d 313, cert. denied 271 Conn. 914, 859 A.2d 569 (2004) (counsel's failure to meaningfully explain plea offer was deficient); Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn.App. 560, 992 A.2d 1200, cert granted 297 Conn. 912 (trial counsel's failure to recommend plea was ineffective); H.P.T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn.App. 480, 14 A.3d 1047 (2011), pet. cert. filed March 28, 2011 (counsel's failure to communicate plea offer through an interpreter was deficient). Other courts have held similarly. See e.g., United States v. Gordon, 156 F.3d 376, 380 (2d Cir.1998) (failure to advise client fully on whether plea appears desirable constituted ineffective assistance of counsel); Boria v. Keane, supra, 99 F.3d 492 (failure to inform petitioner regarding difficulties in obtaining an acquittal in a "buy and bust" case); United States v. Day, 969 F.2d 39, 43 (3d Cir.1992) (advice that was so insufficient and incorrect, it undermined petitioner's ability to make intelligent decision whether to accept plea).
The court turns first to the issue of trial counsel's failure to correctly inform the petitioner regarding his maximum exposure if he went to trial and was found guilty by the jury. The Connecticut Supreme Court has held that the "defendant's awareness of the maximum sentence possible is an essential factor in determining whether to plead guilty ․" (Emphasis added.) State v. Childree, 189 Conn. 114, 126, 454 A.2d 1274 (1983); State v. Collins, 176 Conn. 7, 9–10, 404 A.2d 871 (1978). "Knowledge of the comparative sentence exposure between standing trial and accepting a plea offer will often be crucial to the decision whether to plead guilty." United States v. Day, supra, 969 F.2d 44; United States v. Gordon, 156 F.3d 376, 380 (2nd Cir.1998). Failure to correctly advise a petitioner concerning the maximum exposure upon conviction has been found to constitute deficient performance. United States v. Gordon, supra, 156 F.3rd 376 (counsel informed defendant that his exposure was 120 months when it was actually 262 to 327 months); United States v. Day, supra, 969 F.2d 39 (counsel informed defendant that his maximum exposure was 11 years, when he was sentenced to 22 years and his maximum exposure was actually much greater).
Here, the evidence was undisputed that prior to December 1, 2004, the state offered the petitioner 3 1/2 years concurrent to the sentence the petitioner was then serving. When Abel relayed this offer to the petitioner, she informed him, incorrectly, that his maximum exposure on the charges he was facing was fifteen (15) years, when in reality it was twenty (23) years—a substantial difference of eight (8) years. In addition, Abel failed to advise the petitioner that after a trial, the trial court could impose a maximum sentence of 23 years consecutive to the sentence he was then serving.
The court finds that trial counsel's error and omission in advising the petitioner regarding his maximum exposure after a trial constituted deficient performance.
Turning next to the issue of accessory liability, all three counts of the information alleged that the petitioner "sold, dispensed or gave a certain narcotic substance, to wit: crack cocaine, to Undercover Police Officer ․" Although the information charged the petitioner as a principal and not an accessory, under Connecticut law such a specific allegation in the information was not necessary. "Under Connecticut law, a defendant may be convicted as an accessory even though he was charged only as a principal as long as the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to establish accessorial conduct." State v. Williams, 220 Conn. 385, 388, 599 A.2d 1053 (1991), quoting State v. Fleming, 198 Conn. 255, 268 n.15, 502 A.2d 886, cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1143, 106 S.Ct. 1797, 90 L.Ed.2d 342 (1986); State v. Bagley, 35 Conn.App. 138, 142, 644 A.2d 386, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 913, 648 A.2d 157 (1994). There is "no such crime as 'being an accessory'; ․ The accessory statute merely provides alternate means by which a substantive crime may be committed." State v. Harris, 198 Conn. 158, 163, 502 A.2d 880 (1985), quoting State v. Baker, 195 Conn. 598, 608, 489 A.2d 1041 (1985).7
Abel should have been aware of this well-established law. In addition, prior to the trial Abel had sufficient information, based on the charges, the state's evidence and the petitioner's own version of events, that the state could pursue a theory of accessory liability and/or a jury charge on this issue. She testified that she understood that the state had a strong case and could prove that the petitioner took the money from the undercover officer, went to a third party and returned with drugs, which he turned over to the undercover officer. The petitioner did not dispute these facts but rather claimed that he did not "sell" the drugs, but merely assisted in the sale so that he could obtain drugs for his personal use. The petitioner believed that his version of events provided a defense to the charges and did not know, because Abel failed to tell him, that based on either the state's or his version of events, he could be found guilty as an accessory. The petitioner also believed that he had a good defense because he was drug dependent at the time of his arrest. He did not know, because Abel did not adequately inform him, that his drug dependence was only a defense to one of the three charges.
Based on these circumstances, Abel should have anticipated that under Connecticut law, the state could pursue a theory of accessory liability at trial and was likely to seek an instruction on that claim, if sufficient information was presented at trial. However, she did not realize this. At trial, Abel did not recall the details of her discussion with the petitioner as to the plea offers. However, she testified that she did not "understand accessory liability would be an issue" in the petitioner's trial and did not believe that the state "would proceed under an accessory liability theory." Because Abel did not believe that accessory liability was an issue in the case, it is highly unlikely that she explained this issue to the petitioner. In addition, the court credits the petitioner's testimony that the issue of accessory liability was not explained to him, particularly because Abel failed to anticipate this issue. As it turned out, at trial, "both the defendant's testimony and [the undercover detective's] testimony supported an instruction that the defendant assisted the unnamed dealer at 40 Sanford Place in selling the drugs to [the undercover detective]." State v. King, supra, 289 Conn. 507.8
Because under either the state's version or the petitioner's version of events the petitioner could have been found guilty as an accessory, even though he was not specifically charged that way, it was incumbent upon trial counsel to anticipate the issue prior to trial, to inform and explain the issue to the petitioner, and to advise the petitioner as to how the issue could be raised at trial, whether he testified or not, that his own testimony could be used against him to find him guilty as an accessory, and how the issue would undermine his defense and impact his chances of prevailing at trial.9
Accordingly, trial counsel's failure to anticipate that the state could pursue a theory of accessory liability at trial and inform the petitioner that he could be found guilty as an accessory on any of the three charges constituted deficient performance. This is particularly true here because trial counsel failed to adequately explain to the petitioner that his drug dependency defense was only a defense to one of the three charges.
The court is aware that in assessing trial counsel's performance, the habeas court is required to "recognize that counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 690. However, this presumption is rebuttable. Sanders v. Commissioner, supra, 83 Conn.App. 551. "In determining whether the presumption should apply, ․ acts of ineffective assistance in the same matter may be considered in making that determination." Id.
The court finds that the petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of adequate assistance normally afforded to trial counsel. First, Abel had no recollection of most of her representation of the petitioner generally, or specifically as to his rejection of the state's plea offers. At the time of her representation of the petitioner in 2004 and 2005, Abel did not make any contemporaneous notes or memoranda reflecting her discussions or meetings with the petitioner and recalled almost no details of those meetings. The best Abel could say as to most matters was what her general practices were at the time. Although clearly an attorney's general practices may have some probative value on the attorney's performance in a particular case, the court finds such practices lack any probative value here because of Abel's marked inability to recall critical events concerning her representation of the petitioner.10 Given Abel's utter lack of recollection of the events at issue in this case, there is little for the court to presume about her representation of the petitioner in this matter. Boria v. Keane, supra, 99 F.3d 497 (presumption not applied in part where attorney's testimony did not give much indication as to what occurred during discussions with defendant).
In addition, other significant errors made by trial counsel during the course of this case, and on appeal, convinces the court not to afford Abel the presumption of effective performance in this case. The court finds that Abel made the following additional, critical and unreasonable errors in this case: (1) at the petitioner's sentencing, she failed to correct the state's misrepresentation that the petitioner could be sentenced as a subsequent offender to thirty (30) years on the sale charge, when he was not charged as a subsequent offender; 11 (2) she failed to take a timely appeal of the petitioner's conviction or if she did so, failed to keep a file stamp copy of the appeal; and (3) she was found to have violated the code of professional conduct by failing to keep file copies of important filings.
Thus, in view of Abel's lack of recollection of her representation of the petitioner, particularly, any discussions with him as to the ramifications of accepting and rejecting the state's plea offer, combined with the fact that she committed other significant errors in her representation of the petitioner, the court finds that the presumption that Abel's conduct was adequate has been rebutted.
Turning to the second prong of the Strickland test, the court must determine if the petitioner has proved that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. "A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome." Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 694; Ebron v. Commissioner, supra, 120 Conn.App. 567. In a case such as this one involving whether the petitioner has received adequate advice as to whether to accept a plea, the petitioner must "show that he would have accepted the offer and that the court would have rendered judgment in accordance with that offer." Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn.App. 552.
The Sixth Amendment protections are implicated by a decision to reject a plea offer where the claim is that the rejection of the offer was due to counsel's ineffectiveness. Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 120 Conn.App. 576–77. "[A]fter rejecting the proposed plea bargain and receiving a fair trial, [a defendant] may still show prejudice if the plea bargain agreement would have resulted in a lesser sentence." Id., quoting Engelen v. United States, 68 F.3d 238, 241 (8th Cir.1995); see also Williams v. Jones, 571 F.3d 1086, 1088 (10th Cir.2009) ("The fact that [the petitioner] subsequently received a fair trial (with a much greater sentence) simply does not vitiate the prejudice from the constitutional violation").
The petitioner testified 12 that had he known that he could be found guilty as an accessory to the sale charge, that his drug dependency defense did not apply to both charges, and that his exposure was 23 years consecutive, he would have accepted the state's plea offer.13 Had he accepted any one of the state's plea offers, he would have received a lesser sentence, which he would have completed by June 30, 2008. His present release date from prison is December 19, 2019, after which he will begin five years of special parole. Thus, the petitioner has already been incarcerated for a significantly greater amount of time than he would have been had he accepted any of the state's plea offers. Courts have found that any amount of additional time in prison may constitute prejudice. Ebron, supra, 120 Conn App. 582; Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 203, 121 S.Ct. 696, 148 L.Ed.2d 604 (2001).
The respondent claims that the petitioner has not established prejudice in Abel's failure to correctly inform the petitioner of his maximum exposure on the charges. The respondent's entire argument on this point is: "All the petitioner has shown is that Attorney Abel was not a perfect scrivener. Had the petitioner received a sentence of greater than 15 years, there could possibly be prejudice. But that is not what occurred in this case." Contrary to the respondent's claim, this is precisely what happened in this case.
Abel notified the petitioner that his maximum exposure was fifteen (15) years, and did not inform him that the maximum sentence could be served consecutively to the sentence he was serving. The maximum time that the defendant faced on his convictions was eighteen (18) years, 1–15 years on the sale of narcotics count and three (3) years nonsuspendable time on the sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school. On the sale of narcotics conviction, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to 10 years incarceration and 5 years special parole for a total of 15 years, the maximum amount of time that could be imposed for that offense. On the conviction for sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school, the trial court sentenced the defendant to the maximum amount of time, three (3) non-suspendable years. Those sentences were to be consecutive to one another for a total incarceration time of thirteen (13) years, five (5) years special parole or eighteen (18) years.
At trial, respondent admitted that when the sentencing court imposes a period of special parole to follow incarceration, the special parole time is counted as part of a defendant's total sentence. This admission is consistent with Connecticut law on special parole that holds that special parole is part of the sentence and a total effective sentence including special parole may not exceed the maximum sentence for any given charge. State v. Tabone, 279 Conn. 527, 536, 902 A.2d 1058 (2006); General Statutes § 54–128(c) ("total length of the term of incarceration and term of special parole combined shall not exceed the maximum sentence of incarceration authorized for the offense for which the person was convicted"); General Statute § 54–125e(f) ("If the board revokes special parole for a parolee, the chairperson may issue a mittimus for the commitment of such parolee to a correctional institution for a period not to exceed the unexpired portion of the period of special parole"). When special parole is imposed by the trial court, the defendant "begins to serve the sentence of special parole after "the expiration of the maximum term or terms of imprisonment imposed by the court ․" General Statutes § 54–125e(a). If a defendant violates a term or condition of his or her special parole, he is returned to the custody of department of correction and may be "retained in a correctional institution for a period equal to the unexpired portion of the period of special parole." General Statutes § 54–128(c).14 "The total length of the term of incarceration and term of special parole combined shall not exceed the maximum sentence of incarceration authorized for the offense for which the person was convicted." State v. Tabone, supra, 279 Conn. 538. Thus, because special parole is part of the petitioner's sentence, the trial court imposed a sentence greater than petitioner believed he could receive, based on Abel's advice.
Ultimately, the issue for any habeas court is whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. In this case, there were so many substantial errors made during the pretrial proceedings and the sentencing process that the court does not believe that the petitioner's rejection of the plea offers was a just result.
The court finds that had the petitioner been properly advised that he could be found guilty as an accessory, that his defense of drug dependence only applied to one charge or that his maximum exposure was 23 years consecutive, it is reasonably probable that the petitioner would have accepted the state's offer of 3 1/2 years prior to trial. Accordingly, the court concludes that the petitioner has sustained his burden to prove he was prejudiced by trial counsel's deficient performance in this case.
Having determined that trial counsel's performance was deficient and that the petitioner was prejudiced, the court must determine what remedy to apply. In his amended petition, the petitioner seeks an order that "the judgment in State v. Tyrone King, CR04–200607 be reversed and the case be restored to the docket of the Bridgeport Superior Court for further proceedings necessary to remedy the petitioner's deprivation of his right to effective assistance of counsel, including the opportunity to plead guilty pursuant to the terms of the state's plea offer in 2004 and if such relief is granted and the respondent fails to comply with such orders within 15 days, that petitioner be released from custody."
It is well established that the habeas court has discretion to frame a remedy that is commensurate with the scope of the constitutional violation. Brooks v. Commissioner, 105 Conn.App. 149, 160, 957 A.2d 699, cert. denied, 286 Conn. 904, 943 A.2d 1101 (2008); Ebron v. Commissioner, 120 Conn.App. 586. "Specific performance of a plea agreement is a constitutionally permissible remedy. Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504, 510–11 n.11, 104 S.Ct. 2543, 81 L.Ed.2d 437 (1984). The availability of specific performance, however, is not a matter of right but instead is dependent on an evaluation of equitable considerations, and such a determination is within the discretion of the court. State v. Rivers, 283 Conn. 713, 734, 931 A.2d 185 (2007); see also United States v. Day, supra, 969 F.2d 47 (while second opportunity to accept plea agreement ought not be automatic, it does not follow that remedy of specific performance is never appropriate). In United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 365, 101 S.Ct. 665, 66 L.Ed.2d 564 (1981), the United States Supreme Court stated: 'Our approach has thus been to identify and then neutralize the [constitutional] taint by tailoring relief appropriate in the circumstances to assure the defendant the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial.' See also United States v. Carmichael, [216 F.3d 224, 227 2d. Cir.2000]." Ebron v. Commissioner, supra, 120 Conn.App. 586–7 (footnote omitted).
The remedy of specific performance is appropriate where "no relief other than the opportunity to accept the initial plea offer would remedy the petitioner's constitutional deprivation suffered as a result of [counsel's] ineffective assistance." Id. The Appellate Court has approved of the remedy of specific performance in cases similar to this case where the habeas court found that counsel was ineffective in failing to advise the petitioner concerning a plea offer, and the petitioner went to trial and received a greater sentence. Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 83 Conn.App. 543 (affirming remedy of habeas court reducing sentence, imposed after a jury trial, to reflect pending plea offer rejected as result of ineffective assistance of pretrial counsel); H.P.T. v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 127 Conn.App. 480 (affirming the habeas court remedy of directing the sentencing court to vacate the petitioner's sentence, imposed after a jury trial, and to resentence the petitioner to a sentence that did not exceed that last offer, by the court). Specific performance has also been ordered where the counsel was ineffective in advising the petitioner regarding whether to accept the state's offer or plead guilty without an agreement and leave the sentence to the trial court after a presentence investigation. Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 120 Conn.App. 560 (affirming habeas court remedy directing the trial court to vacate the petitioner's plea, allow the petitioner the opportunity to accept the state's offer, and then if the petitioner accepts the offer to resentence the petitioner in accordance with the plea agreement based on the existing charges and applicable law).
Here, like HPT, Sanders and Ebron, no relief other than the imposition of the state's plea offer of 3 1/2 would remedy the constitutional deprivations suffered by the petitioner as a result of trial counsel's ineffective assistance.15 Although the state made two sets of offers to the petitioner prior to trial and during jury selection, both plea deals included an offer of 3 1/2 years concurrent with the sentence the petitioner was serving. Moreover, Abel's deficient performance was directly related to the state's 3 1/2 concurrent offer made prior to jury selection. Thus, even though a number of offers were made to the petitioner, the court finds that it was the 3 1/2 concurrent offer that petitioner would have accepted had that offer been meaningfully explained to him.16
Thus, the court finds that to remedy the constitutional violation of ineffective assistance of counsel in the case, the petitioner's sentence should be reduced to 3 1/2 years concurrent. The court is mindful that actual specific performance requires that the petitioner's conviction be vacated, he be offered a plea of 3 1/2 years concurrent and that he be allowed to accept it. However, because petitioner has been found guilty by a jury and the court has not found any trial counsel performance ineffective, the court sees no reason to disturb the jury verdicts solely for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to accept the plea and plead guilty in order to received a 3 1/2 concurrent sentence. See Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 83 Conn.App. 543; H.P.T. v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 127 Conn.App. 480; Boria v. Keane, supra, 99 F.3d 492.
The court concludes that trial counsel's performance prior to the trial was deficient in failing to meaningfully advise the petitioner as to the state's plea offers and that the petitioner was prejudiced by such conduct.17 Accordingly, the court remands the case to the trial court to vacate the petitioner's sentence and resentence him to 3 1/2 years concurrent. The underlying jury verdicts shall not be disturbed.
Cobb, J.
1. FN1. The respondent did not file a pre-trial brief and filed a post-trial brief of two and one-half pages. The respondent's counsel had difficulty responding to the court's questions during oral argument, explaining that he did not normally handle habeas cases. The respondent's two-page post-trial brief is of little assistance to the court as it contains no analysis of the issues presented at trial, and cites only two cases, one of which is Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In addition, the court finds respondent's resort to sarcasm rather than argument and legal analysis inappropriate. See respondent's brief at 2 ("Gideon's trumpet lives at GA# 2, even if Mr. King did not appreciate its final pitch").
2. FN2. The court did not locate an amended information dated November 8, 2004 in the record. However, the petitioner asserted this allegation, and the state admitted it in its return. Thus, the court deems the allegation admitted and accepts it as true. See e.g. Practice Book § 10–19; Birchard v. New Britain, 103 Conn.App. 79, 85, 927 A.2d 985, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 920, 933 A.2d 72 (2007).
3. FN3. North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970).
4. FN4. In calculating the petitioner's maximum exposure on the charges of twenty-three (23) years, it must be taken into account that under Connecticut law, a defendant cannot be convicted of both sale of narcotics and sale of narcotics as a non-drug dependent person because the first is a lesser included offense to the second. State v. Bradley, 60 Conn.App. 534, 545, 760 A.2d 520, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 921, 763 A.2d 1042 (2000); State v. Polanco, 126 Conn.App. 323, 336–39, 11 A.3d 188, cert, granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 933, 17 A.3d 69 (2011). A conviction for sale of narcotics only would have resulted in a maximum sentence of 18 years (15 for the sale and 3 for the sale near a school). In either event, Abel failed to inform the petitioner of his correct maximum exposure if convicted because as she stated it was 15 years, which was incorrect under any calculation.
5. FN5. At trial, there was some evidence presented that there were occasions when the trial court in the Bridgeport courthouse would canvass a defendant regarding his or her rejection of a plea agreement. No party presented any evidence that such a canvass occurred in this case. Petitioner's counsel represents in his post-trial brief that after the trial, he contacted various clerks in Bridgeport to determine if there were any transcripts of such proceedings. Counsel learned that there were no such transcripts. Accordingly the court finds that the petitioner was not canvassed by the trial court concerning his decision to reject the state's plea offers.
6. FN6. On December 13, 2004, the state filed another information. That information is essentially the same three charges as the November 8, 2004 information.
7. FN7. Pursuant to General Statutes § 53a–8(a), "[a] person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."
8. FN8. The Supreme Court refused to hear the petitioner's claim on appeal regarding the accessory charge because it was not properly preserved at trial. State v. King, supra, 289 Conn. 506.
9. FN9. The respondent's two-page brief does not address the issue of accessorial liability.
10. FN10. While the court understands that defense attorneys are unlikely to recall all of the specific details of events that occurred years earlier, the court finds it unusual that Abel could recall almost nothing about her conversations with the petitioner concerning whether he should accept the plea, particularly here where the petitioner's failure to accept a plea offer of 3 1/2 years concurrent led to a conviction and sentence of 18 years consecutive.
11. FN11. It was well established in January 2005, when the sentence was imposed in this case, that in order for a defendant to be sufficiently charged with a previous conviction for a similar offense, the criminal complaint or information must "name the date when, the town or city where, the crime for which and the court wherein such conviction was had." General Statutes § 54–62; Practice Book § 36–14; State v. Ferrone, 96 Conn. 160, 173–75, 113 A. 452 (1921). "Our rules of practice and case law provide that where a defendant is exposed to greater punishment according to his status as a subsequent offender, a two part information is required, along with a full judicial proceeding on part B of the information." State v. Foster, 45 Conn.App. 369, 389, 696 A.2d 1003, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 904, 701 A.2d 335 (1997). That was not done here.
12. FN12. It is appropriate for the habeas court to rely on the testimony of the petitioner, where it finds it credible. Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 83 Conn.App. 543. Because trial counsel could not recall much related to her discussions with the petitioner as to the plea, and had no notes to refresh her recollection of any such discussions, trial counsel's testimony was not inconsistent with the petitioner's testimony on many points.
13. FN13. The court presumes that had the petitioner accepted any one of the state's offers, the court would have imposed it. Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 120 Conn.App. 580. "[W]e do not believe that [the habeas petitioner] was required to demonstrate a reasonable probability that the trial court would have approved the plea agreement ․ We know of no case or statute that imposes such a requirement, and we think it unfair and unwise to require litigants to speculate as to how a particular judge would have acted under particular circumstances." Ebron, supra, 120 Conn.App. 579, quoting Turner v. Tennessee, 858 F.2d 1201, 1207 (6th Cir.1988), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 492 U.S. 902.
14. FN14. A parole hearing is conducted on a violation under General Statute § 54–124e(d).
15. FN15. The respondent failed to present any equitable considerations that mitigated against renewal and acceptance of the state's offer. Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 120 Conn.App. 560.
16. FN16. The court is mindful that the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Missouri v. Frye, 131 S.Ct. 856, 178 L.Ed.2d 622 (2011), and directed the parties to brief and argue the issue of the proper remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations where the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures. See Ham v. Commissioner, 301 Conn. 697, 701, n.5 (2011). The court is also mindful that the Connecticut Supreme Court has accepted certification in Ebron, 120 Conn. 560, cert. granted 297 Conn. 560, regarding the same question. Certification has been sought by the state in H.P.T. (A.C 31281), however, as of the date of this decision, the Supreme Court has not acted on the state's petition. Neither the United States Supreme Court nor Connecticut Supreme Court has rendered decisions in those pending cases, and this court is bound by the existing holdings of the state Appellate Court. Moreover, the respondent did not present any significant arguments regarding the proper remedy to be imposed in this case during argument or in its two-page brief.
17. FN17. As to the petitioner's claims in count two of the amended petition asserting that defense counsel was ineffective at trial, the court finds that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of showing that he was prejudiced by defense counsel's conduct at trial. Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 687. Since the court finds that prejudice has not been established, it is unnecessary for the court to address the performance prong of Strickland. See, e.g., Valeriano v. Bronson, 209 Conn. 75, 86, 546 A.2d 1380 (1988); Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707, 712–13, 946 A.2d 1203 (2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 975, 129 S.Ct. 481, 172 L.Ed.2d 336.
Cobb, Susan Quinn, J.


text:
Photos by Bill Brokaw
The combination of Zach Martin and Mike Mullen proved to be too much for Governor Livingston's football team as Warren Hills won 33-22 on Friday, Sept. 21, at Warren Hills.
Zach Martin threw six touch-down passes to Mike Mullen — and he caught them.
Governor Livingston's Andrew Bruner scored on three runs, the longest of which was 72 yards.


text:
Brighter forecast
After flurries today we clear and have frosty nights and sunny days most of this week. Rain should return next Saturday. Lows in the 20s and highs in the 40s. We do get the best meteor shower of the year Thursday and Friday nights and we should be able to see them which is rare in Ohio because of clouds.
Also it does appear, even though it is a long way out; that we will get snow for Christmas and be cold enough for winter sports like skiiing over the Holidays.


text:
At the March 7 Lunch 'n Learn, OIT's Senior Manager of Networking, Peter Olenick presented Campus Networking and the Internet: How They Work.
"Most people really don't care how networking works… they simply care that it does work," summarized Olenick.
During his hour session, Olenick reviewed the technologies involved in campus and internet networking with some focus upon how that technology is actually used on campus and why this complex environment sometimes does not operate as users expect it to.
This image of a network pipe illustrates some of the complexity. There are electronics, logical components, there are network services, and then there are the actual applications that run on top… together, they make up what most users think of as their network connection. All aspects must work in order to provide useful service.
Tag Archives: Internet service provider
Lunch & Learn: PlanetLab: a new model for planetary-scale computing services with Larry Peterson
At the Wednesday, November 15 Lunch 'n Learn seminar, Computer Science Professor and Chair Larry Peterson discussed PlanetLab, an open platform for developing, deploying, and accessing planetary scale internet services.
A prototype of the next internet architecture, PlanetLab is a set of more than 700 servers spread across the globe but connected to the internet at 340 sites in more than 35 countries. You can think of PlanetLab as an entry point onto a new internet and supporting a diversity of services, bringing together a range of new and known ideas and techniques within a comprehensive design. Just as Princeton users are within a short hop to local routers to access the information they need, each of the approximately 3 million users on PlanetLab are all within a small hop to access the information and services they require.


text:
Parting Schotts
Union-Brown pregame report
Good evening from Messa Rink, where it's time to start the ECAC Hockey regular-season stretch drive as first-place and fourth-ranked Union (11-3 ECACH, 17-6-3 overall) take on seventh-place Brown (6-7-1, 9-9-3).
Here's a look at both teams.
The big news for the Dutchmen is they get senior defenseman and team captain Mat Bodie back. Bodie missed last weekend's North Country trip because of the two-game suspension he received for his role in the Mayor's Cup brawl with RPI.
"It [stunk]," Bodie said. "I did it once last year when I was injured. Anytime you're not playing, it's not fun."
The only person left serving a suspension is Dutchmen coach Rick Bennett. After sitting out last weekend's games with a school-imposed suspension, Bennett begins serving a two-game banishment from the ECACH. Unlike last weekend, when he was ineligible to travel with the team, Bennett can be in the building for tonight's game, as well as tomorrow's matchup with defending NCAA-champion Yale. However, when I asked Bennett on Wednesday if he would be in Messa, he declined comment.
The Dutchmen will look to continue their excellent penalty killing of late. They have not allowed a power-play goal in their last 23 short-handed situations in the last eight games. The last power-play goal they allowed came late in the Dec. 14 game at St. Cloud State.
Union's power-play broke out of a slump in last Saturday's 4-3 win at Clarkson. When Max Novak scored on the power-play midway through the third period, it snapped an 0-for-15 slide.
The Bears will always give teams fits. They have for years with Union, and RPI knows it, as well, since the Bears knocked them out of the ECACH tournament last season, winning the quarterfinals in three games.
Sophomore forward Mark Naclerio is Brown's leading scorer with 14 goals and 15 assists. He won a couple of ECACH honors this week, claiming player of the week and player of the month for January. Naclerio had eight goals and six assists in eight January games.
The Bears have been getting good goaltending from freshman Tyler Steel, who is 7-4-3 with a 2.71 goals-against average and a .909 save percentage.
A Brown player who has been a thorn in Union's side is junior forward Massimo Lamacchia. He has scored two goals and three assists in four games against the Dutchmen.
Senior defenseman Dennis Robinson had five assists in five games versus Union.
Last meeting
The last time these two teams saw each other was in the ECACH tournament championship game in Atlantic City, N.J., last March. Max Novak scored twice, and tournament most outstanding player Troy Groesnick stopped 32 shots as the Dutchmen claimed their second Whitelaw Cup with a 3-1 victory.
Union lineup
Freshman center Eli Lichtenwald, who sat out last weekend's games, returns to the lineup. Lichtenwald was suspended for the St. Lawrence contest because of his fight in the Mayor's Cup game. He sat out the next night's game at Clarkson because of an injury.
Senior left winger Cole Ikkala will miss his second straight game. Ikkala was hurt blocking two shots during a third-period Saints' power play. He sat out the Clarkson game.
Retruning to the lineup is right winger Michael Pontarelli, who was a healthy scratch against Clarkson.
Forwards (LW-C-RW):
Daniel Carr/Mike Vecchione/Daniel Ciampini
Matt Hatch/Max Novak/Kevin Sullivan
Matt Wilkins/Eli Lichtenwald/Michael Pontarelli
Theo DiPauli/David Roy/Sam Coatta
Mat Bodie/Charlie Vasaturo
Shayne Gostisbehere/Jeff Taylor
Mark Krug/Sebastien Gingras
Colin Stevens starts in goal
Brown lineup
Brown is dressing 13 forwards and five defensemen.
Forwards (LW-C-RW):
Mike Juola.Mark Naclerio/Nick Lappin
Zack Pryzbek/Matt Lorito/Garnet Hathaway
Ryan Jacobson/Massimo Lamacchia/Kyle Kramer
Matt Harlow/Davey Middleton/Joe Prescott
Mark Hourihan is the extra forward
Dennis Robertson/Jake Goldberg
Aleksi Rossi/Matt Wahl
Tyler Wood
Steel starts in goal.
The officials
Peter Feola and Mike Baker are the referees. Mike Emanatian and Ryan Knapp are the linesmen.
Twitter and hashtags
Follow me on Twitter @slapschotts. The hashtags for the game are #UnionHockey, #BrownHockey and #ECACHockey. If you have questions before, during and after the game, please ask. I will try to reply as quickly as possible.
Please like the "Slap Schotts College Hockey Segment" page on Facebook by clicking here, as well as The Daily Gazette On Ice Facebook page here.
Enjoy the game!


text:
Steinberg has updated Cubasis for iOS to v1.7.1. This is a maintenance update that targets user reported problems.
Improvements and fixes:
- Start button added to the mixdown popup.
- Solves a rare issue where triggering MIDI notes frequently on an instrument assigned via Core MIDI lead to hanging notes.
- Fixes a rare phenomenon where MIDI port list popups appeared continuously.
- Solves an issue where the attack and release values were reseted to their defaults when switching between projects.
- Solves a rare problem where executing a mixdown of a project that contained IAA instruments lead to oversized audio files.
- Moving the pan fader while playback is running no longer leads to audio dropouts.
- Executing a FLAC mixdown of the same project no longer overwrites the previous audio file without notice.
- IAA audio file naming has been corrected to allow projects to be imported in Cubase without the need to locate IAA audio files manually.
- MIDI events with a huge number of notes no longer renders Cubasis unreliable.
- Corrects an issue where a wrong instrument was highlighted in the Media Bay after an instrument was changed in Microsonic.
- The effect status in the inspector now gets updated correctly by tapping its edit button.
- Fixes a rare phenomenon where switching instruments while playing could lead to hanging notes.
- Solves the issue where tapping the panic button did not reset hanging notes of an IAA instrument app.
- Switching projects quickly that contain IAA instruments no longer renders Cubasis unreliable.
- The playable keyboard range now updates correctly after an instrument is changed.


text:
Margaret Maxine Ray, 83, died Sunday, August 7, 2011. She was one of the first female pilots in Louisiana, and learned to fly before she learned to drive. She was an artist and a quilt maker. She loved children, she loved life, and she lived life to its fullest. She retired from N.O. City Hall after 30 years of employment. She was a worthy matron of Loyalty Chapter 119 Order of the Eastern Star.
Read Margaret Maxine Ray's full obituary
Visit Margaret Maxine Ray's guest book
Read today's obituaries from The Times-Picayune
Today's deaths


text:
Natural Remedies For Cold and Flu Symptoms
Natural remedies boost immune systems & prevent cold and flu symptoms in our body. Get to know the health benefits of using medicinal mushrooms, turmeric & buckwheat honey for living a healthy life.
sponsored links
HIGH TIMES Magazine
Loading ...
Highest Voted This Week
Most Clicked This Week


text:
TRENTON — The state's largest troopers union has appealed a judge's decision last month refusing to block the State Police from investigating its president for releasing a confidential internal document, records show.
The notice of appeal, filed Dec. 27 with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, seeks to overturn an earlier order by U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan rejecting a request by the State Troopers Fraternal Association to quash the state's inquiry on the grounds that it violated the union's First Amendment rights.
An attorney for the union did not immediately return a request for comment.
In August 2012, the president of the union, Christopher Burgos, was forwarded a confidential State Police document related to the internal investigation of the 2009 beating by troopers of James Bayliss, a mentally disabled man, court documents state.
At the time, attorneys for the two troopers involved in the Bayliss case were challenging the state's disciplinary charges filed as a result of a Star-Ledger review of the beating.
Records show the document was sent to Burgos by Katherine Hartman, an attorney who represented troopers in unrelated matters. After receiving it, Burgos sent it to the two attorneys — Vincent Nuzzi and Charles Sciarra — involved in the Bayliss case.
The State Police subsequently launched an internal investigation into the disclosure and focused on Burgos. Then, in February, the union sued seeking to block the investigation and any discipline, arguing Burgos was acting in an official capacity as union president.
The union argued "that any adverse action taken by the division against Trooper Burgos would restrict the constitutional right of union members to freedom of association."
But in his ruling, Sheridan found the union "failed to provide any evidence sufficient to support its assertion that any inquiry — even if limited in scope to the actions of a single individual in a single instance — would have a chilling effect."
The judge said that while the most culpable person may be the trooper who mistakenly sent the document to Hartman in the first place, "there are no facts that show that the State Police are targeting Burgos because of his role as president of the union."


text:
Parallel::ThreadContext - Framework for easy creation of multithreaded Perl programs.
This module provides a framework and some utilities for easy creation of multithreaded Perl programs. It introduces and uses the concept of context based concurrent threads. A context specifies a kind of name and work space for thread execution and c...TSAFSERGE/Parallel-ThreadContext-0.01 - 18 Feb 2010 02:53:09 GMT - Search in distribution


text:
Orlando Vacation Home Rentals
We are a vacation rentals and home management company located in Kissimmee, in the sunshine state of Florida. We offer luxurious rental homes in the Kissimmee and Davenport areas of Orlando, Florida. This gives you the best possible locations for your family vacation of a lifetime. All of our holiday homes are located just minutes from Walt Disney World, Universal Studios, Islands Of Adventure and Sea World. We only offer top quality private villas for rental, at extremely competitive rates. so why stay in a cramped hotel room when you can stay in a luxurious home and relax next to your own privately screened pool ?
All of our vacation homes are fully air-conditioned for your comfort, and are in excellent locations in quiet developments. All of our vacation homes are maintained and cleaned to an exceptionally high standard and are fully equipped with all of the modern appliances you would expect from a high quality holiday home.
Our rental homes are very competetively priced and provide you, our guest, a special quality not found at hotels and resorts. After a long and busy day around the parks, what better than to come " HOME " to a place where you can truly relax, in your own private surroundings.
As you will see, our homes offer a high standard of comfort and the convenience of relaxation.
We feel that, for those of you have never rented a home in the Disney area, it will be an experience you will never forget, and, you will not want to go back to a hotel room again, when you can stay in a home for roughly the same price.
Please enjoy viewing our homes and feel free to contact us if you have any questions about a home.
" Don't Wait Any Longer...... Book Now! Call Us Now For Availability And Prices (407) 396 6991 or (407) 209 7963 And Enjoy One Of Our Luxurious Vacation Pool Homes"


text:
Fruit Cake Squares
Shelly Schweiger, Hillsboro
6 Tbsp. Butter
4 cups vanilla wafer crumbs
3/4 cup candied red cherries, halved
3/4 cup candied green cherries, halved
1/2 cup candied pineapple, chopped
3/4 cup dates, chopped
1 cup pecan halves
1 can sweetened condensed milk
1 tsp. vanilla
Pour melted butter into a 15x10x1-inch baking pan. Sprinkle evenly with wafer crumbs. Arrange cherries, pineapple, dates, and pecans evenly over the crumbs. Press down gently. Combine milk and vanilla. Pour evenly over fruit. Bake at 350 degrees for 20 to 25 minutes.


text:
AUDIO: The New Episode of The Steve Austin Show Online
The newest episode of the Steve Austin Podcast is now online. This week he is joined by Dave Millican, the man behind all the WWE title belts.
You can find Stone Cold's podcast: HERE
(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)