AC46663 - Roman v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the 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 because the court erred in concluding that his criminal trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance. We dismiss the appeal.”)

AC44214 - Reynolds v. Commissioner of Correction (Two counts of murder; one count of carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit; ineffective assistance; motion to withdraw as counsel; dismissal of appeal; “The petitioner, now self-represented, thereafter pursued this habeas appeal. As noted by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, the petitioner does not challenge the merits of the habeas court’s ruling in his appellate brief, nor does he address the court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his habeas corpus petition. Instead, the petitioner focuses solely on the court’s ruling on the motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Conlin, which is not a proper subject for an appeal from the court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46884 - Roberto A. v. Commissioner of Correction (“In this appeal we again consider the parameters of the presumption of competence in determining whether trial counsel performed deficiently in representing a petitioner at his criminal trial. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Roberto A. The respondent claims that the court improperly (1) decided an issue not raised in the habeas petition and (2) concluded that the petitioner’s right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated by the failure of his trial counsel to investigate adequately and to call a noncumulative and credible alibi witness. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46675 - Martinez v. Commissioner of Correction (“As acknowledged by the petitioner’s counsel during oral argument before this court, the petitioner’s appeal exclusively challenges the habeas court’s credibility determinations concerning the testimony during the habeas trial given by Attorney Jerome Larracuente and the petitioner. However, a habeas court’s ‘pure credibility determination . . . is unassailable.’ Breton v. Commissioner of Correction, 325 Conn. 640, 694, 159 A.3d 1112 (2017); see also Sanchez v. Commissioner of Correction, 314 Conn. 585, 604, 103 A.3d 954 (2014) (‘we must defer to the [trier of fact’s] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46910 - Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2) improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient; and (3) improperly concluded that he was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s deficient performance in the underlying criminal proceeding. We disagree and dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46407 - Brown v. Commissioner of Correction (“In this certified appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) erroneously found that no agreement existed between the state and certain witnesses in exchange for their testimony, (2) erroneously found that a bond modification for a witness who testified at the petitioner’s criminal trial did not constitute a benefit to that witness, and (3) improperly concluded that his due process rights were not violated by the state’s failure to correct misleading testimony. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45842 - Moore v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that (1) the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that the state violated his right to due process during his underlying criminal trial by (a) failing to disclose an alleged cooperation agreement with a witness who testified at his criminal trial and (b) knowingly soliciting that witness’ allegedly false and misleading testimony and allowing that testimony to go uncorrected, and (2) this court should (a) revisit its prior ruling on his motion for review and grant the relief requested therein to supplement the record in this appeal with transcripts and a court file from a witness’ criminal case that were not before the habeas court, or, in the alternative, (b) take judicial notice of those materials. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the state violated his due process rights, and we decline the petitioner’s invitation to revisit this court’s prior ruling on his motion for review or to take judicial notice of materials that were not before the habeas court. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46325 - LaSalle v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal following its determination that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay for the filing of his untimely habeas petition. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46052 - Angel C. v. Commissioner of Correction ("Upon a grant of certification to appeal, the petitioner, Angel C., appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in precluding him from presenting the testimony of his adult children at the habeas trial, and (2) improperly concluded that he had not established that his trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to contact and call his children as witnesses at the underlying criminal trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20727 - Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction ("'[M]istaken eyewitness identification testimony is by far the leading cause of wrongful convictions.' State v. Guilbert, 306 Conn. 218, 249–50, 49 A.3d 705 (2012). Recognizing the developments in the cognitive science of eyewitness identification, this court has recently established new rules for cases in which eyewitness identification evidence is proffered. Specifically, in Guilbert, we determined that "expert testimony on eyewitness identification is admissible upon a determination by the trial court that the expert is qualified and the proffered testimony is relevant and will aid the jury." Id., 226. In doing so, we overruled earlier decisions from this court, which held that the factors affecting eyewitness identification were within the knowledge of an average juror. See id., 226, 229, 251–53. We reasoned that our prior case law was "out of step with the widespread judicial recognition that eyewitness identifications are potentially unreliable in a variety of ways unknown to the average juror. This [broad-based] judicial recognition tracks a near perfect scientific consensus. The extensive and comprehensive scientific research, as reflected in hundreds of peer reviewed studies and meta-analyses, convincingly demonstrates the fallibility of eyewitness identification testimony and pinpoints an array of variables that are most likely to lead to a mistaken identification." (Footnotes omitted.) Id., 234–36. We also noted that a trial court retains discretion to provide "focused and informative" jury instructions on the fallibility of eyewitness identification evidence. Id., 257–58. Four years later, in State v. Dickson, 322 Conn. 410, 141 A.3d 810 (2016), cert. denied, 582 U.S. 922, 137 S. Ct. 2263, 198 L. Ed. 2d 713 (2017), we further developed protections against inherently suggestive identifications. In doing so, we overruled this court's 1991 holding in this petitioner's direct appeal related to a first-time, in-court cross-racial eyewitness identification. See id., 434–36 (overruling in part State v. Tatum, 219 Conn. 721, 595 A.2d 322 (1991)). We concluded that "any [first-time] in-court identification by a witness who would have been unable to reliably identify the [petitioner] in a nonsuggestive out-of-court procedure constitutes a procedural due process violation." (Emphasis in original.) State v. Dickson, supra, 426 n.11. The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether the principles this court set forth in Guilbert and Dickson apply retroactively to the petitioner's case on collateral review. We conclude that the principles articulated in Dickson do. Accordingly, we reverse in part the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46421 - Best v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner, Durante Best, appeals, following the grant of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, on its own motion pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (1) and (2), his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 5, 2017, which challenged only the structure of his sentence on the convictions that were affirmed by this court after his first criminal trial.”

“Because there is no practical relief in the present appeal that we can afford the petitioner, we dismiss the appeal as moot.”)

AC46531 - Williams v. Commissioner of Correction (“Following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Stanley Williams, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by declining to issue a capias for his former girlfriend, whom he had sought to call as a witness at his habeas trial. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44158 - Townsend v. Commissioner of Correction ("The self-represented petitioner, Timothy Townsend, appeals, following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed that the retroactive application of the Deadly Weapon Offender Registry (DWOR) requirement of General Statutes § 54-280a to him renders his underlying guilty plea involuntary. On appeal, the petitioner raises for the first time the precise claim that he is not required to register as a deadly weapon offender because § 54-280a does not apply to him in connection with his 2002 conviction for murder. Exercising our supervisory authority to review this unpreserved claim, we agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46420 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Devon Earlington Smith, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) erroneously concluded that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently withdrew a prior habeas petition with prejudice, thereby waiving his right to bring the same claims in the present petition. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43186 - Holley v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Ronnie Holley, appeals from 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 as untimely under General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his petition was timely under § 52-470 (d) because it was filed within two years of the final judgment on his prior federal habeas petition or, alternatively, that he had established good cause, under § 52-470 (e), to overcome the presumption of unreasonable delay for the filing of his untimely habeas petition in that he was unaware of the statutory time limit. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC41747 - Coney v. Commissioner of Correction ("This appeal returns to this court on remand from our Supreme Court with direction to further consider the claim raised by the petitioner, Paul Coney, that the habeas court erred in dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e) because he failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of an unreasonable delay. See Coney v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 946, 308 A.3d 35 (2024). We reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the matter for a new hearing and good cause determination.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43187 - Banks v. Commissioner of Correction ("This appeal returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court. See Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 347 Conn. 335, 361, 297 A.3d 541 (2023).The petitioner, Harold T. Banks, Jr., appealed to this court 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 as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (c) and (e). Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 205 Conn. App. 337, 338, 256 A.3d 726 (2021), rev'd, 347 Conn. 335, 297 A.3d 541 (2023). On appeal, the petitioner asserted unpreserved claims that were not included in his petition for certification to appeal, contending that his unpreserved claims were reviewable for plain error and pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 205 Conn. App. 342.This court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that the certification requirement in § 52-470 (g) bars appellate review of unpreserved and uncertified claims whether for plain error or pursuant to Golding. Id., 343–45.

After granting the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal, our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court, holding that "§ 52-470 (g) does not restrict [a reviewing court's] authority to review unpreserved claims under the plain error doctrine or Golding following a habeas court's denial of a petition for certification to appeal, so long as the appellants' claims challenge the habeas court's handling of the habeas proceeding itself and the appellant fulfills his or her burden of establishing that the unpreserved claims" are nonfrivolous under Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 347 Conn. 350.Accordingly, our Supreme Court remanded the case to this court with direction to consider "whether the petitioner fulfilled his burden of establishing that his Golding and plain error claims challenging the habeas court's handling of the habeas proceeding itself were nonfrivolous under the [Simms] criteria." Id., 360–61.Because we conclude that he has not fulfilled his burden, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC43188 - Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction ("This appeal returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court. See Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction, 347 Conn. 377, 297 A.3d 981 (2023). The petitioner, Benjamin Bosque, appealed 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 as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (c) and (e).Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction, 205 Conn. App. 480, 481, 257 A.3d 972 (2021), rev'd, 347 Conn. 377, 297 A.3d 981 (2023).On appeal, the petitioner claimed 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."Id., 481–82.Although the petitioner conceded that he neither preserved his claims before the habeas court nor included them in his petition for certification to appeal, he contended that his unpreserved and uncertified claims were reviewable under the plain error doctrine or pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 205 Conn. App. 486. This court dismissed the appeal, holding that the certification requirement in § 52-470 (g) bars appellate review of unpreserved claims not raised in the petition for certification, whether for plain error or pursuant to Golding. Id., 487–89.We concluded "that, if the petitioner desired appellate review of his claims of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel and/or whether the habeas court had a duty to address counsel's deficient performance to prevent prejudice to the petitioner, he was required to include those issues as grounds for appeal in his petition for certification to appeal." Id., 489.

...

Accordingly, in the present case, because this court dismissed the petitioner's appeal "without first considering whether his unpreserved claims are nonfrivolous under the Simms criteria," our Supreme Court remanded the case to this court to consider "that issue consistent with the principles set forth in Banks." Id. For the reasons stated in the companion case also released today; see Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2024); we conclude that the petitioner's unpreserved claims are frivolous under the Simms criteria and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.")

AC46237 - Davis v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Paul Davis, 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, in which he alleged a due process violation and ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court violated his constitutional right to due process and abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a continuance to afford him additional time to secure the testimony of a witness. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC46270 - Hilton v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, James Hilton, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) improperly rejected his claim that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated when his first habeas counsel, Attorney David B. Rozwaski, failed to present the expert testimony of a forensic pathologist in support of his claim that the petitioner's criminal trial counsel, Attorney Al Ghiroli, had provided ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal as to his claim that the habeas court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing witness credibility. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court as it relates to the petitioner's first claim. We dismiss the appeal as to the petitioner's second claim.")

AC46580 - Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction ("This case returns to us following the remand ordered in Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction, 216 Conn. App. 616, 624, 285 A.3d 1194 (2022).The petitioner, Marcus Hodge, appeals, following the grant of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, on its own motion, his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus dated November 15, 2017 (first amended petition).On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in rejecting the filing of his six count amended petition dated February 21, 2023 (second amended petition).Because there is no practical relief that we can afford the petitioner, who has fully served his underlying sentence, we dismiss the appeal as moot.")

AC43327 - Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Michael G., 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 as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e). The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, filed a request for an order to show cause why the petitioner's habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely pursuant to § 52-470 (d) and (e). On appeal, the petitioner claims, inter alia, that the court erred in concluding that he failed to establish good cause for his late-filed petition. In particular, the petitioner argues that his prior habeas counsel's failure to advise him of the statutory deadline for filing a new petition prior to the withdrawal of his previously pending petition constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, which constituted good cause for the delay in filing. In accordance with our Supreme Court's recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333, 304 A.3d 431 (2023), and our recent decision in Hankerson v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. App. 562, 308 A.3d 1113 (2024), we conclude that the judgment of the habeas court must be reversed, and we remand the case for a new hearing and good cause determination under § 52-470 (d) and (e).

The judgment of the habeas court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

AC46226 - Reed v. Commissioner of Correction ("The self-represented petitioner, Doraine Reed, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying her amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.Her appeal concerns an administrative directive amended by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, in 2016, which changed the calculation of credit that inmates may earn under the risk reduction earned credit program established by General Statutes § 18-98e. See Conn. Dept. of Correction, Administrative Directive 4.2A (effective February 1, 2016). On appeal, the petitioner contends that the application of that administrative directive to her violates the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution.

Resolution of the petitioner's claim is controlled by Rios v. Commissioner of Correction, 224 Conn. App. 350, ___ A.3d ___ (2024).In Rios, this court concluded that, because Administrative Directive 4.2A, as amended, did not constitute a law within the meaning of the ex post facto clause, the petitioner could not establish an ex post facto violation.Id., 353, 375.Bound by that precedent; see State v. White, 215 Conn. App. 273, 304–305, 283 A.3d 542 (2022), cert. denied, 346 Conn. 918, 291 A.3d 108 (2023); the petitioner's ex post facto challenge must fail.

The judgment is affirmed.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46059 - Kukucka v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Dale Kukucka, 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 denied his freestanding due process claim on the basis of procedural default. Specifically, he argues that the court erroneously concluded that the only way he could overcome procedural default was by showing ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and, in so concluding, it improperly rejected his claim that he satisfied the cause and prejudice test set forth in Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 13–15, 104 S. Ct. 2901, 82 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1984).We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45569 - Grant v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) concluded that the eyewitness identification evidence presented at his criminal trial did not violate his due process rights; (2) concluded that he had not established that his trial counsel was ineffective for having failed to consult with or offer the testimony of an eyewitness identification expert, for having failed to investigate the issue of phone calls the petitioner allegedly made from a witness’ cell phone immediately prior to the crime, and for having failed to investigate and to present potential alibi witness testimony; and (3) declined to credit the testimony of two expert witnesses at the habeas trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Dissent

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC46227 - James P. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner, who had been convicted of various crimes pursuant to a guilty plea, claims that (1) his trial counsel performed deficiently by informing him that it was possible for the sentencing court to reject the plea agreement if the court determined that the agreed upon sentence was too high and (2) he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s deficient performance. We disagree with the petitioner’s second claim and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46077 - Vega v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly concluded that he failed to prove that the state had suppressed exculpatory information in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), and (3) improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court improperly denied his petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law

AC46164 - Rios v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent first claims that the court improperly concluded that the amended administrative directive at issue was subject to ex post facto scrutiny because it constitutes a law within the meaning of that clause. The respondent also argues, in the alternative, that, even if the amended administrative directive were subject to scrutiny under the ex post facto clause because it constitutes a law within the meaning of that clause, the court nonetheless improperly concluded that the application of the amended administrative directive to the petitioner violated the ex post facto clause prohibition. We agree with the respondent’s first argument and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45982 - Delgado v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his criminal trial counsel, Attorney Kimberly Graham, and his appellate counsel, Attorney Theresa M. Dalton, did not render ineffective assistance during the criminal proceedings underlying his conviction or in the direct appeal from his conviction, respectively, a conclusion that necessarily defeated the petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel directed at his second habeas counsel, Attorney Laljeebhai R. Patel. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45422 - Donald G. v. Commissioner of Correction (“He claims that the court improperly (1) failed to consider two of his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and (2) concluded that his appellate counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to raise claims of prosecutorial impropriety on direct appeal from the petitioner’s criminal conviction. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions