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 Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3006

AC39783- White v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claims that (1) his right to due process was violated because his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily and (2) his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated because his attorney failed to adequately research and investigate the issue of the petitioner’s mental state at the time of his guilty plea and to bring information about the petitioner’s compromised mental state to the attention of the criminal trial court. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2993

SC19251 - Skakel v. Commissioner of Correction ("The sole issue now before us in this appeal by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, is whether the habeas court properly concluded that the petitioner, Michael Skakel, is entitled to a new trial because counsel in his murder case, Michael Sherman, rendered ineffective assistance by failing to obtain certain readily available evidence that Sherman should have known was potentially critical to the petitioner's alibi defense, that is, the testimony of a disinterested alibi witness whom the habeas court found to be highly credible. Because we agree with the habeas court both that Sherman's failure to secure that evidence was constitutionally inexcusable and that that deficiency undermines confidence in the reliability of the petitioner's conviction—a conviction founded on a case, aptly characterized by the habeas court as far from overwhelming, that was devoid of any forensic evidence or eyewitness testimony linking the petitioner to the crime—we affirm the judgment of the habeas court ordering a new trial.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2990

AC39131 - Turner v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) improperly concluded that there were no violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), at his underlying criminal trial. For the reasons set forth herein, we agree with the petitioner and conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the matter for a new trial.")

AC39493 - Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction (Cohabitation; motion to modify; “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court applied an improper legal standard as a prerequisite for the termination of alimony under General Statutes § 46b-86 (b). We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court and remand the case for further proceedings.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2979

AC39946 - Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction ("In his habeas petition, the petitioner alleged that his conviction is illegal because he did not understand, due to his compromised mental state, what was occurring when he pleaded guilty to one charge and then proceeded to trial on a second charge. The habeas court sua sponte dismissed the petition because it raised the same ground as two prior petitions that had been denied, and it failed to state new facts or to proffer new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the prior petitions. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal because he has a meritorious claim that his prior habeas counsel was ineffective. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, argues that the issue raised on appeal is not reviewable because the petitioner did not raise it in his habeas petition or in his petition for certification. We agree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.")



Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2961

SC19774 - Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the commissioner contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded in Barlow II that (1) General Statutes § 51-183c required that a different habeas judge preside over the proceedings directed by Barlow I to determine whether deficient performance by the petitioner’s attorney during the plea bargaining process was prejudicial under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), and (2) the Barlow I remand order allowed for the introduction of new evidence on the question of whether counsel’s deficient performance had prejudiced the petitioner, rather than requiring the habeas court to make that determination based solely on evidence already in the record. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2952

AC39795 - Cator v. Commissioner of Correction (General Statutes § 53a-3 (11); "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his amended petition, (2) improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his appellate counsel in his direct criminal appeal rendered deficient performance, and (3) improperly concluded that his stand-alone due process claim was procedurally defaulted. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.")

AC39760 - Jobe v. Commissioner of Correction (General Statutes § 52-466 (a); “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his claim under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010). The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, concedes that the habeas court improperly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Padilla, but contends that the judgment of dismissal may be affirmed on the alternate ground that the petitioner failed to allege that he was in custody at the time he filed his petition. We affirm the judgment of dismissal on the basis of the respondent’s alternate ground.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2938

AC39441 - Humble v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Specifically, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to adequately investigate exculpatory evidence, and (2) misadvising him to plead guilty to murder. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denyingthe petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2929

AC39238 - Silver v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance; plea agreement; credibility of witnesses; " The dispositive issue is whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied certification, and we, therefore, dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=2914

AC39862 - Artiaco v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that he was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel and denying his petition for certification to appeal. Because the petitioner has failed to adequately brief his claims of error, we decline to review them, and thus dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1906

AC39626 - Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction (whether court properly dismissed petition; Practice Book § 23-29 (1); "On appeal, the petitioner asserts that he was denied his rights to due process, assigned counsel, and notice and a hearing, when the court, sua sponte, dismissed his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, contends that the court was not required to hold a hearing because the petitioner was not in custody at the time he filed the petition. We agree with the respondent and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1882

AC39202 - Martin v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, he claims that the court erred in: (1) rejecting his claim that his due process right to a fair trial under the state and federal constitutions was violated by the introduction of testimony from an agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at his underlying criminal trial, which was later determined to be scientifically invalid; and (2) concluding that his habeas counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC37185 - Omar v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his contention that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when she exposed his criminal history to the jury. Because we agree with the habeas court’s conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC39582 - Victor C. v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly found that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by (1) failing to present testimony from certain fact witnesses, (2) improperly advising him of his right to testify at trial, and (3) failing to consult and present testimony from an expert in the field of child sexual abuse. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")



Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=1870

AC39289 - Hazel v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to present codefendant’s testimony; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated during his criminal trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC39674 - Fields v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; “In his petition, the petitioner claimed that his trial counsel, John Paul Carroll, rendered ineffective assistance by failing to advise him before trial of the state’s offer that he resolve the charges against him by pleading guilty to felony murder in exchange for a recommended sentence of twenty-five years to serve. The habeas court rejected that claim on the ground that, although Carroll had indeed rendered constitutionally deficient performance by failing to advise the petitioner of the state’s twenty-five year plea offer, the petitioner had not been prejudiced by that deficient performance. Specifically, the court concluded that he had not proved, by a fair preponderance of the evidence, that he would have accepted the offer had Carroll conveyed it to him…Accordingly, on the basis of the court’s credibility based rejection of the petitioner’s claim that he would have accepted the state’s plea offer had it been conveyed to him, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=849

AC39971 - Gamble v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance; conviction of manslaughter as accessory; concert of action theory; doctrine of collateral estoppel; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. We are not persuaded by the petitioner’s arguments, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court…On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his appellate counsel was ineffective by not raising insufficiency of evidence as an issue in his direct appeal. He contends that the court improperly concluded that he failed to prove that he was prejudiced by his appellate counsel’s performance. We disagree.”)

AC39476 - Brown v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, and by rejecting his claims that (1) the state violated his rights to due process and a fair trial by failing to disclose material exculpable evidence and failing to correct false testimony from certain witnesses at his criminal trial, and (2) his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=830

SC19773 - Epps v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition for certification; "In two decisions issued after the petitioner’s conviction was rendered final, this court respectively (1) overruled the long- standing interpretation of our kidnapping statutes under which the crime of kidnapping did not require that the restraint used be more than that which was incidental to and necessary for the commission of another crime against the victim, and (2) deemed that holding to apply retroactively to collateral attacks on final judgments. The petitioner thereafter sought a new trial on the kidnapping charge in light of those holdings in an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus…The respondent never argued in the alternative that a higher standard of harmfulness should apply to collateral proceedings even if the petitioner’s claim was not subject to procedural default, despite federal case law applying a higher standard since 1993. Accordingly, we conclude that this is not the proper case in which to fairly address this consequential issue and that certification was improvidently granted.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=828

AC38769 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance; denial of certification to appeal; pretrial confinement credit; "The dispositive issue is whether the habeas court abused its discretion in so doing. We conclude that it did not and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal…We therefore conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that his ineffective assistance of counsel claim is debatable among jurists of reason, could be resolved in a different manner, or is adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Simms v. Warden, supra, 230 Conn. 616. Accordingly, the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=809

AC39556 - Vitale v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his petition. We conclude that the habeas court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petition and, therefore, that it did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC38688 - Colon v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly denied his petition for certification to appeal after erroneously concluding that his criminal trial counsel, Nicholas Car- dwell, had not provided ineffective assistance. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=799

AC39095 - Salmon v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he failed to establish the ineffectiveness of his pretrial counsel. For the reasons set forth herein, we agree with the petitioner, and conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We further conclude that the habeas court made a clearly erroneous factual finding that underlies its determination that pretrial counsel did not render deficient performance. We also deter- mine that the habeas court did not make a determination regarding whether any assumed deficient performance prejudiced the petitioner. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for a new trial.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=790

AC39328 - Gomez v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that (1) his state and federal constitutional due process rights were not violated by the state’s suppression of material exculpatory evidence concerning agreements or understandings that it allegedly had with two of its witnesses, (2) the state did not violate his state and federal constitutional rights to due process by knowingly presenting, and failing to correct, the false testimony from those witnesses, and (3) he was not denied his state and federal constitutional rights to the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to properly cross-examine those witnesses regarding their alleged agreements or understandings with the state. Because we conclude that the petitioner failed to prove that the agreements or understandings were not disclosed, we are unpersuaded by the petitioner’s first and second claims. We are also unpersuaded by the petitioner’s third claim because, even if it is assumed that his trial counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation, the petitioner failed to prove that he was prejudiced. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC39566- Weaving v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner contends that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and by rejecting his claims that counsel at both his criminal trial and his first habeas proceeding rendered ineffective assistance. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and, thus, dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=768

AC38418 - Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Angel Meletrich, 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. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in not finding that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call the petitioner's aunt as an additional alibi witness during the petitioner's criminal trial. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

AC39286 - Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Luis Lebron, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (b). The petitioner claims on appeal that, in reaching its determination that no good cause existed to proceed to trial, the habeas court improperly concluded that he had waived many of his claims by entering a guilty plea in the underlying criminal action and relied in part on an affirmative defense that was not pleaded by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, in his return. We conclude that the habeas court properly dismissed counts one through four of the petition, but improperly dismissed the entirety of counts five and six. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC39467 - Carmon v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Adam Carmon, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, dismissing in part and denying in part, his fourth petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that (1) the state had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), by withholding critical exculpatory evidence at the time of his criminal trial, (2) his criminal trial counsel, first habeas counsel, and second habeas counsel all had provided ineffective assistance, and (3) he was entitled to immediate release on the basis of actual innocence. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


1 2 3 4