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 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.")


Habeas Slip Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4481

SC20499 - Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction (“Presently before us is the petitioner’s appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly determined that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, did not violate his right to procedural due process in classifying him as a sex offender. The petitioner also claims that the habeas court incorrectly determined that the challenged classification did not violate his right to substantive due process or his right not to be ‘‘punished, except in cases clearly warranted by law,’’ under article first, § 9, of the Connecticut constitution. We conclude that the petitioner was not afforded the procedural protections he was due prior to being classified as a sex offender and, therefore, that his classification violated his right to procedural due process under both the federal constitution and article first, § 9, of our state constitution. We reject the petitioner’s substantive due process claim. 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=4475

AC43380 - Zachs v Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the defense strategy employed at his criminal trial by one of his defense attorneys, Attorney Edward J. Daly, Jr., (2) determined that his conflict of interest claim was both procedurally defaulted and waived, (3) denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding the failure of his other defense attorney, Attorney Brian W. Wice, to cross-examine the state’s rebuttal witnesses at his criminal trial, and (4) declined to apply a cumulative prejudice approach and consider the aggregate effect of counsels’ alleged errors. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC43583 - Fair v. Commissioner of Correction (Third amended petition; “The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal because he demonstrated that he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel during his underlying criminal trial. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4463

AC42032 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to pursue a defense of lack of capacity due to mental disease or defect (lack of capacity). We affirm the judgment of the habeas court...

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that Ovian rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to pursue a lack of capacity defense. Specifically, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that Ovian’s representation was not deficient because it erroneously assumed that Ovian would still have pursued a mitigation strategy, versus a lack of capacity defense, if he had obtained all of the petitioner’s medical records, and his trial strategy did not advance the petitioner’s litigation objective, which, in this case, was to obtain mental health treatment at Whiting.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4459

AC42466, AC42618 - Antonio A. v. Commissioner of Correction ("In the judgment under review in Docket No. AC 42466, the habeas court dismissed the petitioner’s second petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to show good cause for his delay in bringing the petition more than two years following a final judgment denying his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In AC 42466, the petitioner claims that the court erred in (1) failing to afford his counsel a reasonable opportunity to investigate the cause of the delay, and (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of its ruling. In AC 42466, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. In the judgment under review in Docket No. AC 42618, the habeas court dismissed the petitioner’s third petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 on multiple grounds. In AC 42618, the petitioner claims that the court erred in (1) denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) denying his motion for permission to file a late amended petition for certification to appeal and for reconsideration of the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, and (3) dismissing the habeas petition. In AC 42618, we dismiss the portion of the appeal in which the petitioner claims that the court erred in denying the motion and reverse the judgment dismissing the habeas petition.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4441

AC43455 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction (Dismissal of petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted; sentence of five years of incarceration for four separate convictions; additional five year sentence for convictions arising from his criminal conduct while in prison for the previous convictions; not guilty by reason of insanity; “The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in denying his petition for certification to appeal because his underlying claim for presentence confinement credit presented an issue of first impression that had merit, and the court could have granted relief. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Slip Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4439

SC20222 - Banks v. Commissioner of Correction (Long-standing interpretation of state’s kidnapping statutes; charge of kidnapping in conjunction with underlying crime; instructions to jury. Salamon error; Brecht v. Abrahamson, (new trial is mandated if instructional error ‘‘had [a] substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Neder v. United States, (new trial is required unless it is ‘‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the [instructional] error’’; “Second, did the habeas court in the present case, in denying the habeas petition of the petitioner, Mark Banks, and ruling in favor of the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, correctly conclude, as a matter of law, that a Salamon error is harmless when a perpetrator forcibly removes his victims from the scene of a robbery after having taken their property and then restrains them in order to facilitate his escape? …We further conclude that the habeas court correctly determined that the trial court’s failure to instruct the petitioner’s jury in accordance with Salamon was harmless. According, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)

SC20223 - Bell v. Commissioner of Correction (Long-standing interpretation of state’s kidnapping statutes; charge of kidnapping in conjunction with underlying crime; instructions to jury. Salamon error; Brecht v. Abrahamson, (new trial is mandated if instructional error ‘‘had [a] substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Neder v. United States, (new trial is required unless it is ‘‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the [instructional] error’’; “Second, when, as in Banks, it is clear that a perpetrator moved and restrained his victims, after having robbed them, for the purpose of escaping unobstructed and undetected from the crime scene, a habeas court may conclude as a matter of law that the lack of a Salamon instruction was harmless error. See Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, supra,. As we explain more fully hereinafter, in the present case, unlike in Banks; see id.,; it is not clear that the petitioner, Leon Bell, forcibly moved and restrained his victims after having taken property in their possession. For that reason, we can have no fair assurance that the Salamon error did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict. Put differently, following a thorough, de novo review of the record, we cannot be confident that a properly instructed jury would have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See id.,. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment of the habeas court denying Bell’s habeas petition and ordered a new trial on the kidnapping charges. Bell v. Commissioner of Correction, 184 Conn. App. 150, 173, 194 A.3d 809 (2018).”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4432

AC43396 - Kobza v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner . . . appeals following the habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of dismissal rendered by the court with respect to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) erred by dismissing his habeas petition, sua sponte, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29. For the reasons set forth herein, we conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We further conclude that the habeas court erred in its sua sponte dismissal of the habeas petition. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for further proceedings according to law.")

AC42970 - Rice v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner . . . 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 determined that, pursuant to § 52-470 (e), the petitioner had not established good cause to overcome the presumption of unreasonable delay for the filing of his untimely habeas petition. We disagree and accordingly dismiss the appeal.")

AC43041 - Robinson v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner . . . appeals, following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying both counts of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) determined that the state did not violate his rights to due process and a fair trial by failing to disclose material, exculpatory evidence at his criminal trial and (2) denied his claim of ineffective assistance by the habeas counsel who represented him with respect to a prior habeas petition. 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=4418

AC39968 - Lance W. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that his first habeas appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge on appeal the first habeas court’s rejection of his claims that (1) he is actually innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted, (2) his constitutional right to due process was violated because his conviction was based on scientifically invalid evidence, and (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in challenging the expert testimony adduced by the state pertaining to the cause of the victim’s death and the fire science evidence. 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=4401

AC43579 - Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated when his first habeas counsel, Attorney Sebastian DeSantis, failed to pursue a claim that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel, Attorney Thomas Conroy, had provided ineffective assistance when he failed to advise the petitioner that he would be waiving his appellate rights by pleading guilty. 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=4395

AC43047 - Sanchez v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed his due process claim as procedurally defaulted, (2) dismissed his actual innocence claim on the ground of res judicata, and (3) denied his ineffective assistance of habeas counsel claim. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC43372 - Carter v. Commissioner of Correction (Fifth petition for a writ of habeas corpus. "The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in dismissing in part his habeas petition on the grounds that, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29, his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and viola0tion of his right to due process were successive and barred by the doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Agati, Taryn

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4387

AC43836 - Baltas v. Commissioner of Correction (Failure of petitioner to address threshold question of whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying petition for certification to appeal; "Following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, the self-represented petitioner, Joe Baltas, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing as moot his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because the petitioner failed to brief the threshold issue of whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the petitioner's appeal.")

AC42933 - Coccomo v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim that trial counsel rendered deficient performance in manner in which he responded to evidence of petitioner's blood alcohol content; "This habeas corpus action arises out of the conviction of the petitioner, Tricia Coccomo, of multiple offenses related to a drunken driving accident in which she caused the death of three individuals. She appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that her trial counsel had not rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance in the manner in which he responded to evidence of the petitioner's (1) blood alcohol content and (2) consciousness of guilt. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC43145 - Georges v. Commissioner of Correction (Whether habeas court improperly concluded that petitioner had not established that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in advising him of immigration consequences of plea of nolo contendere; "The petitioner, Wendy Georges, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In rejecting his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court concluded that the petitioner had not established deficient performance on the part of his trial counsel in advising him of the immigration consequences of his nolo contendere plea to a charge of reckless manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (3). The petitioner now challenges the propriety of that determination. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Slip Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4361

SC20252 - Moore v. Commissioner of Correction (“The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether a criminal defense attorney who is aware that his or her client has a legal misunderstanding material to the decision of whether to accept a plea bargain has a duty to provide advice to address that misunderstanding…The habeas court denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he claimed that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations prior to his criminal trial at which he was convicted of, among other crimes, robbery in the first degree. Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 186 Conn. App. 254, 255–58, 270, 199 A.3d 594 (2018). On appeal, the petitioner claims that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel because his trial attorney did not adequately advise him of his maximum sentencing exposure if convicted at trial of the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree. Because the petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that trial counsel did not advise him about his maximum exposure for a conviction of the lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree, we conclude that the petitioner cannot prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4355

AC43268 - Buie v. Commissioner of Correction (Dismissal of petition for a writ of habeas corpus; Denial of petition for certification to appeal"He claims that the court improperly (1) determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the habeas petition and (2) denied his subsequent petition for certification to appeal. We conclude that the petitioner’s appeal is moot and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

AC42332 - Houghtaling v. Commissioner of Correction (The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly (1) denied his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in litigating the petitioner’s motion to suppress in the criminal proceeding that resulted in the conviction that is the subject of his habeas petition, (2) deprived him of his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and committed plain error when it changed, without notice or any opportunity to be heard, a full exhibit admitted without limitation to one admitted only for a limited purpose, and (3) excluded from evidence a letter from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that was offered by the petitioner. We disagree with the petitioner’s first and second claims, but agree with the petitioner’s third claim. Nevertheless, we conclude that the habeas court’s error as to the petitioner’s third claim was harmless and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)

AC43288 - Solek v. Commissioner of Correction (General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e); Dismissal of petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) improperly determined that he had not established good cause for the untimely filing sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of unwarranted delay and (2) failed to provide him with a meaningful opportunity to investigate and to present evidence as to good cause for the delay in filing his petition. We dismiss the appeal.”)

AC43166 - Stephenson v. Commissioner of Correction (Practice Book § 23-24 (a) (1) and (3).1 “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal and (2) declined to issue the writ of habeas corpus when, in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he sufficiently alleged a claim under the stigma plus test adopted by our Supreme Court in Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 668, 680–81, 166 A.3d 614 (2017), and, therefore, he alleged a cognizable liberty interest sufficient to invoke the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal, and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal.)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4349

AC42446 - Velez v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that evidence of his mental deficiencies set forth in a 2005 neurological report was insufficient to demonstrate good cause within the meaning of § 52- 470 (e) to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay in filing his successive habeas petition. We disagree with the petitioner 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=4324

AC42890 - Godfrey v. Commissioner of Correction (Common-law contractual ‘‘frustration of purpose’’ doctrine; Whether a defendant “…who had been charged with a capital felony and pleaded guilty to murder in order to avoid the imposition of the death penalty is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea sixteen years later because the death penalty has since been abolished. We conclude that, even if the frustration of purpose doctrine applies to criminal plea agreements, the petitioner, Robert C. Godfrey, is not entitled to relief under that doctrine because by entering into the plea agreement, he assumed the risk that the death penalty might be abolished at some point while he was serving his sentence of sixty years of incarceration.”)

AC42785 - Collins v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) determined that his conflict of interest claim was procedurally defaulted and that, in any event, his trial counsel did not have a conflict of interest and (2) denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. 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=4309

AC43122 - Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) improperly determined that he had failed to establish good cause for the filing of his untimely habeas petition and (2) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. We disagree, and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal."0


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10