AC47784 - Gray v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded
that he is not entitled to relief from his 2019 conviction for possession of
narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a),
based on the state’s failure to disclose to him certain impeachment evidence
concerning one of the state’s key witnesses at his criminal trial, because it
incorrectly determined that such undisclosed evidence was not ‘‘material either
to guilt or to punishment,’’ as required to prove a due process violation under
the test set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct.
1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the
judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC47894 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction (“After a hearing, the habeas court dismissed the petition
for failure to demonstrate good cause to excuse the late filing of the
petition. The petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which
the court denied. On appeal, the petitioner claims, inter alia, that his trial
counsel provided ineffective assistance. However, the petitioner has failed to
allege or demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying
the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss his
appeal. See Goguen v. Commissioner of Correction, 341 Conn. 508, 523,
267 A.3d 831 (2021) (‘although the burden of obtaining appellate review of the
threshold question under [Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 640 A.2d 601
(1994)] and its progeny is minimal, the petitioner must at least allege that
the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for
certification to appeal’ (emphasis in original)); see also Goguen v.
Commissioner of Correction, supra, 524 (‘‘there is no exception to the
requirement that a habeas petitioner must expressly allege that the habeas
court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal
when the petitioner is self-represented’’). The appeal is dismissed.”)
AC47290 - Pagan v. Smith (“In the criminal matter underlying this habeas corpus
action, the petitioner, Ricardo Pagan, was found not guilty by reason of mental
disease or defect after an uncontested trial at which the state agreed not to
oppose the petitioner’s claim that he lacked substantial capacity to control
his conduct within the requirements of the law. See General Statutes § 53a-13
(a). In his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (amended petition),
the petitioner alleged that his counsel from a prior habeas action (first
habeas action), Justine Miller, rendered ineffective assistance by, inter alia,
failing to raise certain claims concerning the alleged failure of his criminal
trial counsel, Mary Haselkamp, to advise him of the consequences of pursuing a
defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Following the
granting of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner appeals
from the judgment of the second habeas court denying in part his amended
petition. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by (1)
concluding that Miller did not render ineffective assistance, and (2) declining
to address certain aspects of his claim that Miller provided ineffective
assistance. We reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.”)