The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Habeas Corpus Law

Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=493

AC38505 - Rogers v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; claim of ineffective assistance; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in concluding that (1) the state did not violate his right to due process when it withheld third-party culpability evidence from the petitioner in his criminal trial, and (2) he was not denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC37693 - Pires v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; claim of ineffective assistance; "He claims that the habeas court erred in failing to conclude that his trial lawyers provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately convey to the trial court his desire to represent himself. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=485

AC38662- Bueno v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying petition for certification to appeal denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus; knowledge of immigration consequences; “At the outset, we note that two distinct issues are presented in this appeal. The first concerns the question of mootness; the second involves the merits of the petitioner’s due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims… We therefore conclude that the petitioner cannot demonstrate that his due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims are debatable among jurists of reason, could be resolved in a different manner, or are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Simms v. Warden, supra, 230 Conn. 616. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=473

AC38214 - Haughey v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because his mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release violated the requirement of individualized, proportionate sentencing under the eighth amendment to the United States constitution as articulated in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012). The petitioner also claims, for the first time on appeal, that his mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of release violates the Connecticut constitution. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=449

SC19072 - Breton v. Commissioner of Correction (Petition for a writ of habeas corpus; "This appeal ensued after the habeas court denied the petition. Subsequent events have rendered the petitioner’s claims relating to his death sentence moot; see part II of this opinion; leaving for our consideration those challenging the judgment of conviction. The principal issue in those remaining claims concerns defense counsel’s obligation to investigate and present mitigating evidence that could reduce a defendant’s culpability when the defendant has directed counsel not to present such evidence and has refused to aid in the presentation of such evidence. The petitioner claims, among other things, that his criminal trial counsel provided deficient representation by failing to investigate evidence that would have revealed that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and methamphetamine intoxication at the time of the offenses which in turn prejudiced him by depriving him of a meritorious mitigating defense strategy… We conclude that counsel must ensure that a defendant has made a knowing and voluntary decision not to present mitigating evidence. We further conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition in the present case as to the claims related to this issue, as well as to the petitioner’s other claims challenging his conviction.”)

AC37363 - Sinchak v. Commissioner of Correction (Fifth amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claims that: (1) his due process rights were violated at his underlying criminal trial because the jury’s guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (2) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in the underlying criminal trial by the failure of his trial counsel, Michael Graham, to marshal the facts in his favor during closing argument and to move, after the verdict, for a judgment of acquittal on each charge of which he was found guilty on the ground that the jury’s guilty verdict was against the weight of the evidence; (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel on direct appeal from his underlying conviction by the failure of his appellate counsel, Pamela S. Nagy, to raise his weight of the evidence claims as grounds for reversing the conviction; and (4) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel in a prior habeas corpus proceeding, in which he challenged the lawfulness of the same underlying conviction by the failure of his prior habeas counsel, Donald J. O’Brien, to raise the previously described clams of ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel as grounds for obtaining relief in that proceeding. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC38417- Lee v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition for certification to appeal; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal and (2) improperly denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s asserted failure to request certain pretrial bond increases. Because the petitioner did not demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=440

SC19251- Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "After previous unsuccessful attempts to overturn his conviction, including two appeals to this court, the petitioner filed the habeas petition that is the subject of this appeal. In that petition, he principally claimed that his criminal trial counsel provided such inadequate representation that he was denied his constitutional right to have the effective assistance of counsel for his defense. The habeas court agreed with the petitioner on some of his claims and rendered judgment granting the petition. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, has appealed from the habeas court’s judgment. Because we conclude that the petitioner’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally adequate representation, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case to that court with direction to render judgment denying the petition.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=427

AC37661 - Antwon W. v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "He claims that, contrary to the decision of the habeas court, his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to (1) adequately protect his constitutional right to an impartial jury; (2) object to the jury instructions provided by the trial court, Cremins, J., regarding the proper use of constancy of accusation evidence; (3) adequately cross-examine or otherwise impeach the victim; (4) advise him to accept the state’s plea offer rather than proceed to trial; and (5) investigate and call witnesses who would have provided exculpatory testimony. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=401

AC38431 - Arroyo v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Reynaldo Arroyo, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance and that his claim of prosecutorial impropriety was procedurally defaulted. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC38359 - Brian S. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Brian S., appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in concluding that he failed to prove that his criminal trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC38161 - Abreu v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Rafael Abreu, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which alleged ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel. The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his prior habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to pursue adequately three claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Specifically, the petitioner claims that trial counsel improperly failed (1) to conduct an adequate investigation regarding a potentially exculpatory witness, (2) to offer certain evidence in support of the petitioner’s self-defense claim, and (3) to advise the petitioner properly regarding his potential sentence exposure should he proceed to trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC38205 - Green v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Courtney Green, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claims that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to advise him properly regarding the sentencing consequences of his guilty pleas, and (2) his guilty pleas were not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court failed to ensure he was not under the influence of any medications that would inhibit his ability to enter guilty pleas. We conclude that the habeas court properly rejected the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground that he failed to demonstrate prejudice as required under the test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), as modified by Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 342, 357, 53 A.3d 983 (2012), cert. denied sub nom. Arnone v. Ebron, U.S. , 133 S. Ct. 1726, 185 L. Ed. 2d 802 (2013). We also conclude that the petitioner’s second claim must fail as a matter of law because, although it is common practice in Connecticut and perhaps advisable to do so, the law does not require a court to determine whether a defendant’s faculties are impaired by any medications prior to accepting guilty pleas. See State v. Ocasio, 253 Conn. 375, 378–79, 751 A.2d 825 (2000). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC38774 - Shipman v. Commissioner of Correction ("Following a grant of certification to appeal, the petitioner, Somen Shipman, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by finding that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the court improperly found that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated by his trial counsel’s failure (1) to adequately raise a Batson challenge, and (2) to present the testimony of two alibi witnesses. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")



Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=365

AC37129 - Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying him certification to appeal and improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance. We dismiss the appeal… The principal issue raised by the petitioner in this appeal is that the court erred in not finding counsel ineffective for an alleged failure to present a closing argument that the restraint or abduction of the victim was not a kidnapping, but merely incidental to his other crimes, and to properly file a motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the charge of kidnapping.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=354

AC38139 - Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in denying her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to (1) her lost opportunity to pursue a plea bargain and (2) the exclusion of expert witness testimony regarding codependency syndrome. We disagree, and affirm the judgment of the habeas court…With respect to her first claim, that her trial counsel were ineffective by failing to engage in plea negotiations on her behalf, the court concluded that the trial counsel’s performance was not deficient. In support of its conclusion, the court reasoned that the petitioner was adamantly opposed to engaging in plea negotiations throughout the state’s prosecution, she explicitly instructed counsel not to pursue a plea bargain, and the state was not interested in negotiating a plea. The court also concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate prejudice. With respect to her second claim, that the petitioner’s trial counsel were ineffective in failing to lay a proper foundation for the introduction of expert testimony regarding codependency syndrome through Dr. Robert Novelly, the habeas court similarly concluded that the petitioner had failed to satisfy her burden under Strickland. Specifically, the court concluded that, because codependency syndrome was a novel concept at the time of the petitioner’s trial, and counsel made a reasonable attempt to introduce Novelly’s testimony by analogizing codependency syndrome evidence to other syndrome evidence, their performance was not deficient.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=347

AC37508 - Giuca v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; " The petitioner claims that the court improperly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by concluding that he failed to establish that his mental state at the time of his guilty plea rendered his plea involuntary, unknowing, and unintelligent in violation of the federal due process clause. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC37366 - Duncan v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal, (2) improperly concluded that he had received the effective assistance of counsel and (3) improperly denied his due process claim that his pleas were not made knowingly and voluntarily. Because the petitioner did not demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC38575 - Ampero v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) concluded that his trial counsel provided effective assistance, (2) rejected his claim of actual innocence, and (3) rejected his claim that his due process rights were violated by the use of allegedly perjured testimony. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC38238 - Rojas v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by not concluding that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to negotiate a plea bargain on his behalf, and by not concluding that the petitioner was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to properly investigate his case. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")



Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=333

AC37573 - Rosa v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "The habeas court granted certification to appeal on the petitioner’s claims that it improperly concluded that his criminal trial counsel, Bruce Lorenzen, did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing (1) to adequately advise the petitioner regarding plea offers, (2) to move for a mistrial regarding potential juror bias, and (3) to prepare and adequately argue for sentence mitigation with testimony from petitioner’s family. After reviewing the petitioner’s brief, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to brief adequately the first and third issues and, accordingly, we decline to review these claims. Regarding the petitioner’s remaining claim, we conclude that the court properly determined that the petitioner’s counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=314

AC39020 - David N.J v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; ineffective assistance; "He claims that the court improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing adequately to cross-examine the victim and others regarding the victim’s version of events, and (2) failing adequately to cross-examine VJ, the victim’s brother. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=308

AC37032 - James v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and that the court improperly determined that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to pursue the petitioner’s trial objective or to seek a jury instruction on parental discipline/justification. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal... The petitioner next claims that the habeas court improperly determined that the petitioner’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to seek a jury instruction on parental discipline/justification pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-18 (1) although the facts of the case supported it. In response, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, contends that defense counsels’ decision not to seek the instruction was reasonable trial strategy, and that, even if they should have requested the instruction, it is not reasonably probable that the result of the underlying criminal trial would have been different. We agree with the respondent that the petitioner failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. ")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=293

AC38246 - Heck v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that counsel who represented him in two criminal trials involving town hall burglaries provided ineffective assistance. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court…More precisely, the petitioner criticized the performance of trial counsel in failing to argue that the physical transfer of the GPS device to Connecticut and its subsequent use at his two trials were constitutionally impermissible because once the petitioner’s burglary case in New Hampshire was annulled under New Hampshire law sometime after November 12, 2008, any police and court records contained in his case were not disclosable to the public, including Connecticut law enforcement officials. The petitioner argued that he was prejudiced by the use of the GPS device at both trials.")



Habeas Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=284

SC19512 - Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; CGA sec. 51-296 (a); "The sole issue in this appeal is whether Connecticut law permits a third petition for a writ of habeas corpus (third habeas) to vindicate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during what is commonly known as a ‘habeas on a habeas,’ namely, a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus (second habeas) challenging the performance of counsel in litigating an initial petition for a writ of habeas corpus (first habeas), which had claimed ineffective assistance of counsel at the petitioner’s underlying criminal trial or on direct appeal... we conclude that our common law authorizes a third habeas petition as a proper vehicle to vindicate that right. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court dismissing the counts of the third habeas petition that claimed ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel.")

AC38453 - White v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; kidnapping in second degree with firearm; burglary in second degree with firearm; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the habeas court improperly granted the petition after concluding that the jury in the petitioner’s underlying criminal case should have been instructed on the intent and conduct necessary to find the petitioner guilty of kidnapping in accordance with State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 550, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008). Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly granted the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=260

SC19521 - Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "In 2002, a jury found the petitioner, Michael Skakel, guilty of the 1975 murder of his neighbor, Martha Moxley (victim). After previous unsuccessful attempts to overturn his conviction, including two appeals to this court, the petitioner filed the habeas petition that is the subject of this appeal. In that petition, he principally claimed that his criminal trial counsel provided such inadequate representation that he was denied his constitutional right to have effective assistance of counsel for his defense. The habeas court agreed with the petitioner on some of his claims and rendered judgment granting the petition. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, has appealed from the habeas court’s judgment. Because we conclude that the petitioner’s trial counsel rendered constitutionally adequate representation, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case to that court with direction to render judgment denying the petition.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=259

AC38016- Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; " On appeal, he claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) improperly concluded that the alleged conduct of the prosecutor in the underlying criminal proceeding did not violate the petitioner’s right to due process and a fair trial. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=234

AC37709 - Westberry v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “On appeal,the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by rejecting his claim that perjured testimony was used at his criminal trial, in violation of the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, and that he is actually innocent. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC37549 - Bridges v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court, Fuger, J., (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) improperly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in finding that his criminal trial attorney and his previous habeas attorney did not render ineffective assistance. We disagree, and dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

AC37686 - Robles v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “On appeal, the petitioner argues that the habeas court improperly denied his petition because his guilty pleas, made pursuant to the Alford doctrine, were not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily as a result of the new interpretation of our kidnapping statutes as detailed in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), and its progeny. We conclude that the petitioner’s specific claim regarding the knowing and intelligent nature of his pleas was not raised to or decided by the habeas court. Accordingly, we decline to review his appellate claim and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC37909 - Williams v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for certification to appeal from the habeas court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, wherein he alleged that (1) his counsel at trial provided ineffective assistance by failing to take curative measures to remedy prosecutorial impropriety that occurred during closing arguments, and (2) his counsel on direct appeal provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise a claim of prosecutorial impropriety. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal. We therefore dismiss the appeal.”)

AC37512 - Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that counsel in both his underlying criminal prosecution and his first postconviction habeas corpus proceeding rendered ineffective assistance. Because the petitioner did not demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.”)

AC38229- Ambrose v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “On appeal, he claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that the performance of his criminal trial counsel was not deficient. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=224

AC37860 - Jimenez v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “He sets forth claims of constitutional violations because of the actions of trial counsel, and he claims deficient performance of trial counsel, appellate counsel, and first habeas counsel. The petitioner bases these claims on trial counsel’s (1) allegedly discriminatory and improper statements during closing argument; (2) failure to pursue a motion to suppress a purportedly inculpatory statement by the petitioner; and (3) failure to call a witness. Following a trial, the habeas court denied the petitioner’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”)

AC38005 - Alvarado v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “The habeas court dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2) on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. Because a ‘petitioner’s classification as a security risk group member does not implicate a liberty interest’ that is ‘sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the habeas court’; (internal quotation marks omitted) Rodriguez v. Commissioner of Correction, 159 Conn. App. 162, 166, 122 A.3d 709 (2015); we conclude that the habeas court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On this point, jurists of reason cannot differ. Accordingly, we further conclude that the habeas court did not err in denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal.”)


1 2