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=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.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4724

AC43902 - Torres v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance due to certain prejudicial prior misconduct evidence being admitted at trial; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification on the ground that he failed to demonstrate that he had been denied the effective assistance of counsel in his underlying criminal trial. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4710

SC20485 - Jordan v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, when counsel has died prior to the habeas trial; conviction of manslaughter in the first degree; “The habeas court granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, reasoning that trial counsel’s failure to call six additional eyewitnesses to testify at the underlying criminal trial prejudiced the petitioner’s defense. The Appellate Court subsequently reversed the habeas court’s judgment on the ground that the petitioner, as a consequence of his trial counsel’s death, had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the strong presumption that his trial counsel had exercised her reasonable professional judgment. Jordan v. Commissioner of Correction, 197 Conn. App. 822, 871–72, 234 A.3d 78 (2020). On appeal to this court, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court’s standard places an insurmountable obstacle in the path of a habeas petitioner whose trial counsel is unavailable to testify. For the following reasons, we clarify the applicable standard and conclude that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Strickland test with respect to either claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4708

AC42818 - Freitag v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in denying (1) count one of the amended petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel against Attorney Francis O’Reilly, his trial counsel at the time of his guilty pleas, and (2) count two of the amended petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel against Attorney Norman A. Pattis, his trial counsel at the time of sentencing. We reverse, in part, the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for a new habeas trial as to certain claims raised in counts one and two of the amended petition.”)


Habeas Corpus Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Roy, Christopher

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4701

AC43240 - Lopez v. Commssioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Ramon Lopez, 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 improperly rejected (1) his claim that the state, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), failed to disclose certain information during the criminal case, (2) his claim that his first habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and (3) his actual innocence claim. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC43687 - Santana v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Luis A. Santana, Jr., 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 in denying his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his habeas petition and (2) improperly concluded that he had not received ineffective assistance from his criminal trial counsel.We disagree that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

AC43864 - Coltherst v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Jamaal Coltherst, appeals following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that (1) he received ineffective assistance of trial counsel in both of the underlying criminal matters that formed the basis for his habeas petition and (2) because the jury in one of his underlying criminal matters was not instructed to determine whether the victim in that case was restrained to an extent exceeding that which was necessary to complete other crimes, as required by State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), his conviction of kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm in that case violated his constitutional right to due process. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4675

AC42994 - Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (Interpretation of rule PB 23-24; retroactive application of 2013 amendment; earned credit for parole eligibility and whether it violated ex post facto clause of US constitution; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and declining to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, concedes that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification and declining to issue the writ for the reason stated by the court, but nonetheless argues that we should affirm the judgment because the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition. We agree with the respondent 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=4634

AC43685 - Shaheer v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; defense of duress; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

…Because the court thoroughly addressed the petitioner’s argument raised in this appeal that Lorenzen’s representation was constitutionally ineffective, we adopt its well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and the applicable law on that issue.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4620

AC43584 -Leconte v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to demonstrate that (1) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his efforts to suppress or to otherwise respond to evidence of an inculpatory statement he made to his cellmate, and (2) his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise on direct appeal a claim that the trial court improperly granted the state’s motion to join for trial the charges against him that arose out of three separate robberies. We are not persuaded by the petitioner’s first claim and decline to review the second claim because of inadequate briefing. Accordingly, 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=4609

AC43208 - Stafford v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition on the grounds that (1) the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to state a claim involving the deprivation of a recognized liberty interest, and (2) the petition was rendered moot by a witness’ testimony at the habeas trial. We agree with both jurisdictional claims and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand with direction to render judgment stating that the petitioner is parole eligible.”)


AC43105 - Finney v. Commissioner of Correction (The petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his habeas petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2) on the ground that the petition failed to state a claim on which habeas relief could be granted. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, both refutes the petitioner’s claim and raises as an alternative ground for affirmance that, even if the petition raises a cognizable claim for habeas relief, the court should have dismissed the petition as untimely filed in accordance with General Statutes § 52-470. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court improperly dismissed the petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2). We also agree that, in resolving the court’s order to show cause why the petition should be permitted to proceed in accordance with § 52-470, the habeas court improperly determined that the petition was filed within the prescribed statutory time limit. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case with direction (1) to deny the court’s own motion to dismiss and (2) to conduct a new hearing to determine, in accordance with § 52-470 (e), whether the petitioner can demonstrate good cause for the delay in filing the petition and, if not, to dismiss the petition on that basis.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4578

AC43433 - Hasan v. Commissioner of Correction (Third petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “The petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition as untimely under General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e). We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

…The petitioner claims that, because he asserted a claim of actual innocence before the habeas court in the show cause hearing, ‘the rebuttable presumption of untimeliness does not apply and [he] should be permitted to pursue his claims.’ More specifically, the petitioner argues that, ‘[i]nstead of dismissing [his] petition based on an erroneous statutory interpretation, the habeas court should [have been] concerned that evidence . . . that [may] lead to . . . [an] overturned . . . [conviction] . . . was . . . presented . . . .’ We disagree.”)


Habeas Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4571

SC20369 - Halladay v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that (1) the Appellate Court improperly dismissed his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) the habeas court improperly granted the motion for production filed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, over his claims of privilege. Because the habeas court’s order does not constitute an appealable final judgment, we cannot review whether the habeas court properly rejected the petitioner’s claim that his attorneys’ case file was privileged. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4557

AC43639 - Marshall v. Commissioner of Correction (Whether term of incarceration and period of special parole constituted double jeopardy; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly dismissed his habeas petition. We disagree, and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

AC43267 - Fenner v. Commissioner of Correction (Dismissal of petition as untimely; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification because he had good cause for the untimely filing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

AC43643 - Charles v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance of trial counsel; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel.The petitioner argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to investigate and to assert a claim of self-defense and that the habeas court made clearly erroneous factual findings in its memorandum of decision. 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=4540

AC42537 - Carrasquillo v. Commissioner of Correction (Second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; whether petitioner was adequately advised of plea offer; “The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by concluding that he was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel during his underlying criminal trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC41911 - Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction (“Specifically, the petitioner claims that the sentence of sixty years without the possibility of parole imposed after his underlying criminal trial is illegal because it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States and Connecticut constitutions, and that the habeas court could have determined that emerging science concerning juvenile brain development entitled him to a lesser sentence. We conclude that the habeas court improperly dismissed the habeas petition, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4525

AC42165 - Harris v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly denied his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged ineffective assistance of (1) appellate counsel and (2) prior habeas counsel. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.")

AC43961 - Cruz v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by concluding that (1) Attorney William Gerace’s allegedly deficient representation during plea negotiations was not prejudicial, and (2) Attorney Dean Popkin did not render ineffective assistance with respect to the petitioner’s sentencing proceeding. 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=4496

AC43188 - Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because (1) it should have been obvious to the court that his habeas counsel had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and (2) he was denied his constitutional right to counsel because the court had failed to intervene when his counsel did not present any evidence in support of his claim that good cause existed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay in the filing of his petition. We dismiss the appeal.”)

AC43815 - Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his right to due process under the federal and state constitutions was violated because General Statutes §§ 53a-81 and 53a-55a2 do not require the state to prove, as an essential element of accessorial liability for manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, that he intended the principal’s use, carrying or threatened use of a firearm. 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=4486

AC43187 - Banks v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because (1) it should have been obvious to the court that his habeas counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and (2) he was denied his constitutional right to counsel because the court failed to intervene when his counsel did not present any evidence in support of his claim that good cause existed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay in the filing of his petition. We dismiss the appeal.")


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11