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 Appellate Court Opinions

by Townsend, Karen

 

AC37498 - Ramos v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; second amended petition for a writ of habeas; “He asserts, more particularly, that his pleas were not entered intelligently or voluntarily because his trial counsel (1) failed to advise him of the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, which he assertedly could have raised as to all of his pending charges under General Statutes § 53a-13, based upon a misinformed evaluation of his mental capacity at the time of the charged offenses by a forensic psychiatrist to whom she accidentally gave the medical records of a different inmate for the purpose of making that evaluation; (2) failed to conduct an adequate investigation as to the potential viability of the defense of lack of intent to commit robbery due to voluntary intoxication, which he also could have raised as to all pending charges under General Statutes § 53a-7, before advising him to plead guilty to those charges; and (3) advised him not to inform the trial judge that he had taken prescription drugs on the day of his guilty pleas and then failed to correct the record when, on the basis of her advice, he denied such drug use in response to the judge’s questions during the plea proceeding. We dismiss the appeal.”)

AC38586 - Reese v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; third petition for a writ of habeas corpus. “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and presents the following issues for resolution: (1) whether the court erred when it dismissed his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim as successive; (2) whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and call key witnesses at his criminal trial; and (3) whether first habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call key witnesses at the petitioner’s previous habeas trial.”)

  • Posted in: