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 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.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=214

AC37238 - Bush v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Dion Bush, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus as well as the denial of his petition for certification to appeal. The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by not concluding that his appellate counsel in a prior habeas appeal was ineffective. Specifically, the petitioner argues that his prior habeas appellate counsel was ineffective by failing to properly brief issues on appeal relating to: (1) alleged ineffectiveness by the petitioner's criminal trial counsel for not moving to sever the petitioner's trial from that of his codefendant; and (2) an alleged conflict of interest by criminal trial counsel resulting from his representation of another client that rendered his representation of the petitioner ineffective.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.")

AC37496 - Giattino v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Richard Giattino, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the habeas court erred when it (1) declined to conduct an in camera review of school records pertaining to the victim of the underlying crimes; and (2) rejected the petitioner's claim that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We decline to reach the merits of the petitioner's first claim, and conclude that the habeas court did not err with regard to the second claim. We therefore affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC38172 - Nieves v. Commissioner of Correction ("Following a grant of certification to appeal, the petitioner, Angel Nieves, 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 habeas court improperly concluded that he had not demonstrated that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present an exculpatory statement made by a state's witness describing the perpetrator of the crime with which the petitioner was charged. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=211

AC37601- Mourning 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 the record established that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move to exclude the testimony of the state’s ballistics expert. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC37576- Gerald W. v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; amended writ; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that he received ineffective assistance from his prior habeas counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=198

AC37685 - Jones v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that counsel who represented him on a prior petition for a writ of habeas provided ineffective assistance. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC37796 - Parker v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; " On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying certification to appeal from the judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus and (2) improperly concluded that his criminal counsel had not rendered ineffective assistance by advising him to plead guilty. We dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=190

AC37389 - Hanson v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “Specifically, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in concluding that (1) Attorney Salvatore Bonanno did not represent the petitioner in the underlying criminal proceedings and therefore could not be the focus of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim; (2) Attorney Donald Freeman’s representation of the petitioner was not ineffective; and (3) Assistant State’s Attorney Thomas O’Brien’s prosecution of the petitioner’s cases in the criminal proceedings was not improper. We disagree with the petitioner and dismiss the appeal.”)

AC38169 - Gooden v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; incarceration credit; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance at his sentencing. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC36979 - Parker v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance at his sentencing. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=178

AC38010 - Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "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 of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in accordance with Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), and (2) his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court failed to ensure that he fully understood the precise immigration consequences of his plea. 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). Additionally, the petitioner’s second claim fails as a matter of law because immigration and naturalization consequences of a plea, although often significant, are not of a constitutional magnitude for purposes of evaluating whether a plea is knowing and voluntary. See State v. Malcolm, 257 Conn. 653, 663 n.12, 778 A.2d 134 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Mazur, Catherine

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=149

AC38119 - Nogueira v. Commissioner of Correction ("The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Leonardo Nogueira. On appeal, the issue before this court is whether the habeas court properly determined that the respondent had failed to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the result in the petitioner's 2002 criminal trial for kidnapping in the first degree would have been the same had the criminal trial court applied the interpretation of kidnapping subsequently adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008). We disagree with the conclusion of the habeas court, and, accordingly, reverse the judgment granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.")


Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=136

AC37738 - Sewell v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by concluding that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance. The petitioner claims that his trial counsel failed to adequately investigate the state’s witnesses and prepare for trial, and as a result, he was prejudiced. We disagree with the petitioner and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=121

AC38026 - Helmedach v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that the petitioner’s trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform the petitioner of a plea offer until after she had testified at the underlying criminal trial. Having thoroughly reviewed the record prior to oral argument,2 we concluded after oral argument that the habeas court properly granted the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Immediately thereafter, we orally affirmed the judgment of the habeas court.3 Consistent with that ruling, we now issue this written opinion.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=107

AC37234 - Moye 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 improperly (1) determined that his criminal trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance by failing to request a sequestration order, (2) violated his right to due process by failing to review all of the evidence admitted at the habeas trial, and (3) refused to issue a capias for an absentee witness. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC37451 - Saez v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal on the following grounds: (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in the presentation of the petitioner’s self-defense claim; and (2) the habeas court improperly prohibited the petitioner from testifying that he was the victim of attacks prior to committing the homicide of which he was convicted. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC37856 - Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court, Fuger, J., improperly granted the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction. We conclude that the court properly dismissed that portion of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of his first and second habeas counsel on the ground of res judicata, and that the court also properly dismissed that portion of the petition alleging ineffective assistance of his third and fourth habeas counsel, albeit on alternative grounds than those on which the court relied.”)


1 2