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

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5051

AC44492 - Inglis 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 claims that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in his underlying criminal trial, and (2) his right to due process under the Connecticut constitution was violated by the admission of both out-of-court and in-court eyewitness identifications of him that were obtained through unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=5038

AC44533 - Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal; "The petitioner, Joaquin Santiago, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification and improperly dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by concluding that he was not denied the effective assistance of his trial counsel, Special Public Defender John Stawicki, with respect to Stawicki's failure to preserve the petitioner's direct appeal. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal. ")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4994

SC20553 - Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction (Statutory presumption that a successive petition for a writ of habeas beyond statutory time limits is unreasonable delay; § 52-470 (d) and (e); “The petitioner, Eric Thomas Kelsey, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus following its determination that the petitioner had failed to establish good cause for the delayed filing of that second petition. See Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 202 Conn. App. 21, 43–44, 244 A.3d 171 (2020). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly (1) reviewed the habeas court’s dismissal of his second petition pursuant to § 52-470 (e) under the abuse of discretion standard, and (2) concluded that the habeas court correctly determined that the petitioner had failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing of his second petition. We disagree with both claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)



Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4984

SC20591 - Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction (“The habeas court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Alison Barlow, after determining that the petitioner had suffered prejudice as a result of the ineffective assistance rendered by his trial counsel, who failed to provide the petitioner with professional advice and assistance during pretrial plea negotiations. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, claiming that the habeas court improperly found that it was reasonably probable that the petitioner would have accepted the trial court’s pretrial plea offer but for the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel. 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=4974

AC43895 - VanDeusen v. Commissioner of Correction (”On appeal, the petitioner primarily claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that she failed to demonstrate that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by neglecting to request a jury instruction setting forth the statutory elements of General Statutes § 53-202k and, more specifically, defining the term ‘firearm,’ as used in § 53-202k and defined in General Statutes § 53a-3 (19). She additionally claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly concluded that she failed to demonstrate that her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by neglecting to request that the court instruct the jury that § 53-202k expressly excludes ‘assault weapon[s]’ from the term ‘firearm,’ or otherwise to object to the court’s instruction as to § 53-202k. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court denying the petition”.)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4953

AC42942 - Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction (On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in rejecting his claim that his prior habeas attorneys were ineffective in not pursuing the claim that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for their failure to challenge the trial court’s jury instructions as to (1) the element of intent required for the specific offenses alleged against him and (2) his affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)

AC44390 - O'Reagan v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court erred (1) in dismissing in part his habeas petition after finding that he was not in custody on two of his challenged convictions, and (2) in denying his habeas petition after concluding that his trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance. We disagree with both of the petitioner’s claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC44160 - Sease v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner raises three principal issues on appeal: (1) the court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal; (2) his right of due process was violated by the prosecuting authority’s knowing presentation of false testimony at his criminal trial; and (3) the court improperly denied his claim that his right to effective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing was violated. We make no determination as to whether the petitioner prevails on his third claim, but we conclude that the habeas court improperly denied his petition for certification to appeal, and remand the matter to the habeas court for additional factual findings regarding the performance prong of his ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing claim. We leave the petitioner’s second claim to another day in light of our remand order on his third claim.”)

AC43862 - Jones 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, (2) deprived him of his constitutional and statutory rights by failing to admit into evidence or consider the transcripts of the underlying criminal trial, (3) improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance, and (4) 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. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s 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=4943

SC20430 - Saunders v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) the defense of procedural default applies to competency claims, and (2) his pleadings failed to allege sufficient cause and prejudice to overcome the procedural default defense. We disagree with the petitioner that competency claims are categorically exempt from being procedurally defaulted because incompetency may satisfy the cause and prejudice standard to excuse a procedural default. In the petitioner’s case, our review of the petition leads us to conclude that his pleadings met the standard necessary to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we reverse the Appellate Court’s judgment and remand the case to that court with direction to remand it to the habeas court for an evidentiary hearing on the threshold question of whether the petitioner was incompetent at the time of his underlying criminal trial or his direct appeal and, if so, whether he suffered any resulting prejudice, thereby excusing his procedural default.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4935

AC44228 - Leach v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; claim that habeas court abused its discretion in denying petition for certification to appeal; "The petitioner, Kareem Leach, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that his trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance. We disagree that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4930

SC20561 - Grant v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly concluded that he did not demonstrate that he had suffered prejudice from the ineffective assistance of his trial counsel insofar as his trial counsel allegedly failed to properly inform him that he would be subject to deportation as a consequence of his guilty plea to a felony. 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=4927

AC44229 - Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction (On appeal, the petitioner claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that he had not proven the requisite deliberate indifference to establish a violation under the eighth amendment to the United States constitution and (2) the respondent violated his rights under article first, §§ 8 and 9, of the state constitution. Both claims are predicated on the petitioner’s allegation that his continued confinement during the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an unnecessary risk to his life. 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=4903

AC44187 - Olorunfunmi v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner, a Nigerian citizen, claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal because his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated due to the failure of his trial counsel to advise him, as required by Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), that a plea of guilty to larceny in the second degree would almost certainly result in his deportation to Nigeria, which, in fact, occurred following his plea to that offense and subsequent sentencing. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification, and, accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.”)

AC44047 - Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in its determination that he failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under General Statutes § 52-470 (e). Our examination of the record and briefs and consideration of the oral arguments of the parties persuades us that the habeas court acted properly and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4889

AC43993 - Bova v. Commissioner of Correction ("Following the granting by the habeas court of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Mark Bova, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in failing to find the existence of a cooperation agreement or understanding between Diana Donofrio, a coconspirator, and the state with respect to Donofrio’s testimony at the petitioner’s criminal trial. We disagree with the petitioner’s claim of error 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=4881

AC43581 - Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction (Fifth amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed counts one, two, and three of the petition on the basis of res judicata; (2) determined that our Supreme Court’s decisions in State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 49 A.3d 705 (2012), and State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, U.S. , 137 S. Ct. 2263, 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017), could not be applied retroactively to the identification claims raised in counts six and seven of the petitioner’s petition; and (3) denied count five of the operative complaint alleging ineffective assistance against his third habeas counsel. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC43381 - Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by (1) denying his motion to sequester a subpoenaed witness, (2) striking his motion to reconstruct and correct the record, (3) denying his request to issue a subpoena, (4) dismissing in part and denying in part his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and (5) denying his petition for certification to appeal. We dismiss the appeal.”)

AC44198 - Heywood v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that he was prejudiced as a result of his trial counsel’s deficient performance. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4869

AC44162 - Quint v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance; “On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the record establishes that his counsel failed (1) to meaningfully communicate the state’s plea offer and (2) to ensure that the petitioner would receive presentence jail credit for the time that he was incarcerated between his March 17, 2017 sentencing in the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven at Meriden (Meriden) and his April 10, 2017 sentencing in the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield (Bridgeport). 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=4835

AC44048 - Chase v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance of counsel; whether the examination and cross-examination would be considered sound trial strategy; whether the court reasonably concluded that the counsel was familiar with topics germane to child sexual assault cases; “On appeal, he claims that the court incorrectly determined that he received effective assistance of 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=4811

AC44259 - Baltas v. Commissioner of Correction (Petitioner’s claim that the habeas court’s conclusion that trial counsel did not concede his guilt was erroneous; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal because his rights to autonomy and to the effective assistance of counsel were violated. We dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4789

AC43981 - Zubrowski v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance; claim of failure to consult and present testimony from crime scene reconstruction expert and forensic toxicologist; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance as defined in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4752

SC20487 - Woods v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner contends that the Appellate Court improperly construed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which he had filed as a self-represented party, in concluding that it did not raise a claim that counsel at the petitioner’s second habeas trial, which was held in 2011, provided ineffective assistance by not challenging the failure of defense counsel at his 2006 murder trial to present evidence as to his diminished capacity.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4740

AC43607 - Wright v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the court incorrectly determined that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to present an alibi defense. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC43988 - White v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of failure to present testimony at habeas trial of witness who had allegedly perjured testimony at criminal trial; “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 his first habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Because the petitioner has not demonstrated that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification, we dismiss the appeal.”)




Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4731

AC44294 -Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction (“He now appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, Bhatt, J., denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the habeas court erred by determining (1) that habeas counsel’s performance was not deficient and (2) that his withdrawal with prejudice of a prior habeas corpus petition was knowing and voluntary. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)