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 Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3712

SC20204- Bowens v. Commissioner of Correction (Second petition for habeas; 1998 murder conviction; “On appeal, the petitioner claims, among other things, that the habeas court incorrectly concluded that (1) he did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is actually innocent of the murder, (2) the identification procedures employed in his criminal case did not violate his due process rights, (3) his first habeas counsel did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel, and (4) his cruel and unusual punishment claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm the judgment of the habeas”).


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3689

AC41026 - Doan v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. We agree that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. Nonetheless, we conclude that the court properly determined that the petitioner was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel. We, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court").


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3682

AC40903 - Echeverria v. Commissioner of Correction- (The petitioner’s sole claim on appeal is that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to advise him properly of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea pursuant to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)

AC40904 - King v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that he had received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, and (2) dismissed the petitioner’s claims that his right to due process was violated by the trial court’s not stating on the record its refusal to accept the petitioner’s pretrial plea agreement. 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=3675

AC40926 - McCarthy v. Commissioner of Correction ("In his underlying criminal case, the petitioner allegedly rejected a plea offer from the state after being misled regarding the strength of the state’s case against him because his prior counsel, Joseph Elder, fabricated affidavits from certain eyewitnesses to the underlying crime. The habeas court denied the petition on the ground that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not cognizable because Elder was no longer representing the petitioner when he fabricated the affidavits or at the time the plea offer was made.")

AC40719 - Abrams v. Commissioner of Correction (He claims that counsel who represented him in the appeal taken from the denial of his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus, John C. Drapp, rendered ineffective assistance by withdrawing the appeal pursuant to Practice Book § 63-9. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the habeas court erred in concluding that Drapp did not render ineffective assistance by withdrawing the appeal at the petitioner’s direction because his decision to withdraw the appeal was based on Drapp’s poor advice. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)


Habeas Supreme Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3638

SC20137 - Henning v. Commissioner of Correction (Two habeas petitions; “The second habeas petition, which is the subject of this appeal, alleges, among other things, that the state deprived the petitioner of his due process right to a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, which require the state to correct any testimony by a state’s witness when the state knew or should have known that that testimony was materially false or misleading. More specifically, the petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated by virtue of the state’s failure to correct the trial testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee, that a red substance on a towel found in the victim’s home had tested positive for blood when, in fact, no such test had been conducted, and, further, a test of the substance conducted in connection with the present case proved negative for blood. The habeas court, Sferrazza, J., rejected all of the petitioner’s claims, including his claim concerning Lee’s testimony about the towel, and this appeal followed. We agree with the petitioner that, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, he is entitled to a new trial due to the state’s failure to alert the trial court and the petitioner that Lee’s testimony was incorrect, and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”) See also, Henning v. State below.

SC20139 - Henning v. State ("On appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, the petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly determined that the newly discovered DNA evidence does not warrant a new trial…the petitioner claims that the three year limitation period of § 52-582 (a) simply does not apply to a petition, like the present one, in which there is newly discovered DNA evidence…In a separate opinion issued today, we have concluded, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus granting him a new trial because the state deprived him of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)... Because our opinion in that case awarding the petitioner a new trial renders moot the petitioner’s appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, we must dismiss the present appeal.”)

SC20136 - Birch v. Commissioner of Correction (“The second petition, which is the subject of this appeal, alleged, among other things, that the state deprived the petitioner of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, which require the state to correct any testimony that it knows or should know is materially false or misleading. More specifically, the petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated because the assistant state’s attorney (prosecutor) failed to correct certain testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee, concerning a red substance on a towel found in the victim’s home that, according to Lee, had tested positive for blood. In fact, no such test had been conducted, and, moreover, a test of the substance that was done for purposes of the present case proved negative for blood. The habeas court, Sferrazza, J., rejected all of the petitioner’s claims, including his claim with respect to Lee’s testimony about the towel, and this appeal followed. Because we agree with the petitioner that, contrary to the conclusion of the habeas court, he is entitled to a new trial due to the state’s failure to alert the trial court and the petitioner that Lee’s testimony was incorrect, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”) See also, Birch v. State below.

SC20138 - Birch v. State (“On appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, the petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly determined that the newly discovered DNA evidence does not warrant a new trial. The petitioner further claims that this court, in determining whether a new trial is likely to result in a different outcome, should consider the original trial evidence together with all exculpatory evidence, even evidence that would not otherwise support a petition for a new trial because it was discovered by the petitioner after the three year limitation period for filing such a petition had expired…In a separate opinion issued today, we have concluded, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus granting him a new trial because the state deprived him of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)... Because our opinion in that case awarding the petitioner a new trial renders moot the petitioner’s appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, we must dismiss the present appeal.”)

SC20179 - Griffin v. Commissioner of Correction (Public Act 15-183; transfer to criminal docket from juvenile docket; Public Act 15-84; eligibility for parole; evolution of ‘standards of decency’ for punishments for children; “The issue presented in this appeal is whether the transfer of a fourteen year old defendant’s case to the regular criminal docket and his subsequent sentence of forty years imprisonment violate the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment enshrined in the dual due process provisions of the constitution of Connecticut, article first, §§ 8 and 9… We agree that recent statutory changes to the juvenile justice system—which significantly limit, but do not entirely prohibit, the transfer of a fourteen year old defendant’s case to the regular criminal docket—do not evidence a change in contemporary standards of decency for purposes of the constitutional claim raised by the petitioner in the present case. We also conclude that, because the petitioner is eligible for parole pursuant to P.A. 15-84, his forty year sentence complies with established constitutional safe-guards. Therefore, 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=3627

AC41464 - Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc. (Habeas; whether only a person is authorized to file for habeas pursuant to statute 52-466; whether elephants lacked standing to file habeas; practice book rule 23-24 [a] [1] and [2]; “The petitioner argues that the court erred in (1) dismissing its petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that it lacked standing, (2) denying its subsequent motion to amend the petition, and (3) dismissing the habeas petition on the alternative ground that it was ‘wholly frivolous.’ For the reasons discussed herein, we agree with the habeas court that the petitioner lacked standing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3600

SC20075 - Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing his appeal from the judgment of the habeas court, which denied his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the habeas court acted within its discretion in denying certification to appeal because he established that his counsel had performed deficiently by failing to call a second alibi witness and, further, that had that witness testified, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the petitioner’s criminal trial would have been different. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3572

AC41036 - Harris 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 concluded that the petitioner’s prior habeas and trial counsel were not ineffective for failing to obtain the psychiatric records of one of the state’s witnesses, Tammy Jamison. 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.")

AC40696 - Gudino v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims, among other things, that the habeas court improperly (1) dismissed count one of the amended petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel on the ground that it constituted an improperly successive petition, and (2) denied count two alleging ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient performance of both his prior habeas counsel and his trial counsel. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3554

AC41625 - Dinham v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner argues that the court improperly dismissed his claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for the failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the court improperly dismissed his claims that (1) he relied on ‘governmental representations’ that he would receive risk reduction credit when he pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, (2) the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, misconstrued and misapplied several statutes pertaining to the petitioner receiving a parole suitability hearing, earning risk reduction credit in the future, and applying risk reduction credit toward the advancement of the petitioner’s parole eligibility date, and (3) the respondent’s customary practices have created a vested liberty interest in receiving a parole suitability hearing, earning future risk reduction credits, and applying risk reduction credits to advance his parole eligibility date. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3539

AC39919 - Roger B. v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel failing to assert a statute of limitations affirmative defense. “In the present case, the petitioner not only failed to prove that his counsel’s performance was deficient but also failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the alleged deficient performance. A detailed review of this case’s tangled procedural history is required to place this decision in its proper context.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3531

SC20137 - Henning v. Commissioner of Correction (Two habeas petitions; first petition dismissed with prejudice on the basis of petitioner’s purported refusal to appear at trial; “The second habeas petition, which is the subject of this appeal, alleges, among other things, that the state deprived the petitioner of his due process right to a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, which require the state to correct any testimony by a state’s witness when the state knew or should have known that that testimony was materially false or misleading. More specifically, the petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated by virtue of the state’s failure to correct the trial testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee, that a red substance on a towel found in the victim’s home had tested positive for blood when, in fact, no such test had been conducted, and, further, a test of the substance conducted in connection with the present case proved negative for blood. The habeas court, Sferrazza, J., rejected all of the petitioner’s claims, including his claim concerning Lee’s testimony about the towel, and this appeal followed. We agree with the petitioner that, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, he is entitled to a new trial due to the state’s failure to alert the trial court and the petitioner that Lee’s testimony was incorrect, and, therefore, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

SC20139 - Henning v. State ("In a separate opinion issued today, we have concluded, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus granting him a new trial because the state deprived him of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny by failing to correct certain incorrect trial testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee. See Henning v. Commissioner of Correction, 331 Conn. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019). Because our opinion in that case awarding the petitioner a new trial renders moot the petitioner's appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, we must dismiss the present appeal. See, e.g., State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 486–87, 949 A.2d 460 (2008) (appeal is moot, and therefore must be dismissed, when, because of events occurring during pendency of appeal, appellate court cannot afford any practical relief to appellant).

The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.")

SC20136 - Birch v. Commissioner of Correction (Conviction of felony murder and conviction affirmed in appeal; two habeas petitions- first denied; “The second petition, which is the subject of this appeal, alleged, among other things, that the state deprived the petitioner of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny, which require the state to correct any testimony that it knows or should know is materially false or misleading. More specifically, the petitioner claims that his right to due process was violated because the assistant state’s attorney (prosecutor) failed to correct certain testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee, concerning a red substance on a towel found in the victim’s home that, according to Lee, had tested positive for blood. In fact, no such test had been conducted, and, moreover, a test of the substance that was done for purposes of the present case proved negative for blood. The habeas court, Sferrazza, J., rejected all of the petitioner’s claims, including his claim with respect to Lee’s testimony about the towel, and this appeal followed. Because we agree with the petitioner that, contrary to the conclusion of the habeas court, he is entitled to a new trial due to the state’s failure to alert the trial court and the petitioner that Lee’s testimony was incorrect, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

SC20138 - Birch v. State ("In a separate opinion issued today, we have concluded, contrary to the determination of the habeas court, that the petitioner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus granting him a new trial because the state deprived him of a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and its progeny by failing to correct certain incorrect trial testimony of the then director of the state police forensic laboratory, Henry C. Lee. See Birch v. Commissioner of Correction, 331 Conn. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2019). Because our opinion in that case awarding the petitioner a new trial renders moot the petitioner's appeal from the denial of his petition for a new trial, we must dismiss the present appeal. See, e.g., State v. Boyle, 287 Conn. 478, 486–87, 949 A.2d 460 (2008) (appeal is moot, and therefore must be dismissed, when, because of intervening events during pendency of appeal, appellate court cannot afford appellant any practical relief).

The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3521

AC41224 - Outing v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that his trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance in failing (1) to properly investigate and present an alibi defense, (2) to properly investigate and rebut the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the murder at issue, and (3) to adequately preserve an issue regarding expert testimony on eyewitness identification. The petitioner also claims that the court erred in concluding that his appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue, on direct appeal, of the trial court’s refusal to permit surrebuttal evidence. Finally, the petitioner claims that the court incorrectly determined that he had not met his burden of proof regarding his claim of actual innocence. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC41750 - Jordan v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner’s sole claim on appeal is that the habeas court improperly dismissed his claim that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, entered into, and subsequently breached, a purported contract with the petitioner to award him risk reduction credit in exchange for his adherence to his offender accountability plan. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC40615- Villafane v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly (1) denied his motions to appoint habeas counsel, and (2) rejected his claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3477

AC39874 - Dennis 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) incorrectly concluded that he failed to establish that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when trial counsel failed to request a stay of execution that resulted in the loss of sixteen days of presentence incarceration credits. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court improperly denied his petition for certification to appeal, and, after considering the merits of his claim, we conclude that the habeas court incorrectly determined that trial counsel did not render deficient performance when he failed to request a stay of execution of the petitioner’s prior sentence. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC40977 - Cancel v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that his trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance by failing (1) to litigate adequately the issue of whether the two underlying criminal cases against the petitioner should have been joined for trial, (2) to object to opinion testimony from a witness on an ultimate issue of fact with respect to the criminal charges in one of the underlying cases, (3) to present expert testimony that could have offered an alternative innocent explanation for the sexual assault allegations against the petitioner, and (4) to attend the petitioner’s presentence investigation interview with a probation officer. 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=3467

AC41039 - Leon v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that (1) that conduct violated his right to client autonomy under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, and (2) the habeas court improperly determined that the petitioner had not been denied the effective assistance of counsel by that conduct. We conclude that the former was not pleaded or decided by the habeas court and therefore is not properly before this court. With respect to the latter, the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel fails, as he did not establish prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC40984 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that his prior habeas attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing to allege that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing (1) to consult with a forensic pathologist to reconstruct the crime scene, and (2) to object to the admission into evidence of certain witness statements. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3462

SC19987 - Newland v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas Corpus; Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72; “The principal issue in this appeal is whether the petitioner, who was denied counsel at his criminal trial and failed to raise a claim related to that deprivation either at trial or on direct appeal, is required to demonstrate actual prejudice to overcome the respondent’s claim of procedural default. We conclude that, for purposes of procedural default, after the petitioner has established good cause for failing to raise his claim that he was completely deprived of his right to counsel, prejudice is presumed. Thus, 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=3459

AC40933 - Bree v. Commissioner of Correction (" On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in ruling that his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing (1) to consult with and to present testimony from an expert in audio-video forensics to challenge the reliability of closed-circuit television surveillance video evidence used by the state to identify him as the perpetrator in one of the robberies; (2) to timely object to and move to strike the nonresponsive testimony of the petitioner’s alleged accomplice, Gabriel Santiago, identifying the petitioner’s photograph in a photographic array as that of a perpetrator of another of the underlying robberies; and (3) to present the testimony of the petitioner’s stepfather, Ronald Riebling, to bolster exculpatory testimony from his wife, Sue Riebling, the petitioner’s mother. We disagree with the petitioner’s claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3430

AC41165 - Holbrook v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Michael Holbrook, 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 improperly concluded that he failed to prove (1) ineffective assistance of his prior habeas counsel, and (2) that the state suppressed exculpatory evidence at his criminal trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3407

AC40751 - Smalls v. Commissioner of Correction ("Following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Bernard Smalls, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that his prior habeas attorney rendered ineffective assistance by failing effectively to raise his claim that his attorney in his underlying criminal trial rendered ineffective assistance by failing to explain to him the implications of a plea offer that he rejected. 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=3398

AC40587 - Betts v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition… “in which he claimed that trial counsel in his underlying criminal prosecution rendered ineffective assistance by giving him constitutionally inadequate advice concerning the state’s pretrial plea offer to recommend a lesser sentence in exchange for his guilty plea to certain charges, which he rejected before the start of trial. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in ruling that (1) trial counsel did not give him inadequate advice concerning the state’s pretrial plea offer, and (2) he was not prejudiced by such allegedly inadequate advice in connection with that offer. We disagree with both of the petitioner’s claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=3384

AC40923 - Juan G. v. Commissioner of Correction (Risk reduction earned credit; Joint motion to “reverse summarily the habeas court’s dismissal of the second count of the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to the petitioner’s claim that the retroactive application of an amended statute that eliminated certain risk reduction earned credit from the calculation of a violent offender’s initial parole eligibility date violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. See General Statutes §§ 18-98e and 54-125a. We agree with the parties that resolution of this appeal is controlled by our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Breton v. Commissioner of Correction, 330 Conn. 462, 196 A.3d 789 (2018). Accordingly, we grant the parties’ motion and reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court with direction to grant the petition only as it relates to the petitioner’s ex post facto claim.”)

AC41091 - Ross v. Commissioner of Correction (Carrying pistol or revolver without permit; “The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing (1) to call a toxicologist as an expert witness in order to present an adequate intoxication defense and (2) to object to improprieties in the prosecutor’s closing arguments. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7