AC41663 - Leffingwell v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “In that petition, he claimed, inter alia, that his federal and state constitutional rights were violated as a result of legislative changes pertaining to the administration and application of risk reduction earned credits (RREC). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In accordance with our Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court should not have dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without first providing the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or other written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.”)

AC41635 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition; claim that federal and state constitutional rights were violated as a result of legislative changes; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition without first providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard. In accordance with our Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court should not have dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without first providing the petitioner with notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or other written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this decision.”)

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

AC42876 - Stanley v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; "The self-represented petitioner, Steven Keith Stanley, appeals, following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Although the petitioner challenges the merits of the habeas court's denial of his petition, he has failed to brief the threshold issue of whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner's appeal.")

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

AC45132 - Foster 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 (1) to advise the petitioner to reject the plea offer because it was effectively a life sentence, (2) to advise the petitioner to reject the plea offer because he would lose his right to appeal the trial court’s determination that the petitioner was competent to stand trial, and (3) to preserve the petitioner’s right to appeal from the trial court’s determination that the petitioner was competent to stand trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC45062 - Ross v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) rejected his actual innocence claim, (2) concluded that he failed to establish that standby counsel provided ineffective assistance, and (3) dismissed count two of the habeas petition. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

SC20679 - Grant v. Commissioner of Correction (Sixth amendment right to autonomy; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Whether petitioner's right to autonomy was violated by defense counsel's concession of guilt as to lesser included offense; Whether defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by conceding guilt as to lesser included offense; "The petitioner, David Grant, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he sought to vacate his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-55 (a) (1) and 53a-55a (a), assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217. The petitioner claims that the habeas court incorrectly determined that (1) McCoy v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2018), which recognized a criminal defendant's right under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution to autonomy in deciding the fundamental objectives of his defense, was not implicated under the facts of this case, and (2) his trial counsel, Sebastian DeSantis, did not render ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), when he conceded, during closing argument, that the petitioner was guilty of manslaughter. After a thorough review of the record and applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

AC45323 - L. D. v. Commissioner of Correction (Department of Children and Families; allegations of emotional neglect; “On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly concluded that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of emotional neglect. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

AC44881 - Smorodska v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that her trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance in advising her about the immigration consequences of her pleading guilty pursuant to the Alford doctrine. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC43232 - Villafane v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner argues that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus without affording him an opportunity to be heard. We agree that the court abused its discretion by denying the petition for certification to appeal. Further, we conclude, in light of our Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and in Brown’s companion case, Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), that the habeas court improperly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 23-29 without providing the petitioner with prior notice of its intention to dismiss, on its own motion, the petition and an opportunity to submit a brief or a written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC45338 - Simonoff v. Commissioner of Correction (“Although the petitioner challenges the merits of the habeas court’s denial of his amended petition, he has failed to brief the threshold issue of whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

AC43321 - Canales v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her 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. We disagree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC44665 - Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court incorrectly dismissed his claims that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, violated his constitutional rights to (1) procedural due process, (2) equal protection of the law, and (3) freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We disagree that the court improperly dismissed the petitioner’s first claim. We agree, however, that the court improperly dismissed his second and third claims. We therefore affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”)

AC42852 - Stenner v. Commissioner of Correction and AC43779 - Greenfield v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioners claim that the habeas courts erred in concluding that the petitioners failed to establish ‘good cause’ pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e) to overcome the rebuttable presumption of unreasonable delay stemming from the untimely filing of their respective habeas petitions. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgments of the habeas courts.”)

AC41627 - Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the dispositive claim raised by the petitioner is that the court improperly dismissed his amended habeas petition under § 23-29 without notice and a hearing.1 In light of our Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1, 282 A.3d 959 (2022), and in Brown’s companion case, Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39, 282 A.3d 433 (2022), we conclude that the habeas court committed error in dismissing the amended habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 without providing to the pettioner prior notice of its intention to dismiss, on its own motion, the amended habeas petition and an opportunity to submit a brief or a written response addressing the proposed basis for dismissal. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC44620 - Jaynes v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in dismissing the petition pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (e) because (1) it includes an allegation of actual innocence which, pursuant to § 52-470 (f), cannot be dismissed for failure to meet the statutory time limit codified in § 52-470 (d), and (2) he demonstrated good cause for the untimely filing of his petition under § 52-470 (d). We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC44171 - Ayuso v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner, Jose Ayuso, 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 in which he alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States constitution. The gravamen of the petitioner’s deliberate indifference claim is that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, is providing inadequate medical treatment for the petitioner’s back pain and for a lump on his inner thigh, including by not providing the petitioner with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and back surgery.”)

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

AC44258 - Donald v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner contends that the habeas court improperly rejected his claims that (1) the state violated his due process right to a fair trial in the underlying criminal trial by (a) knowingly presenting false or misleading testimony to the jury concerning the details of its agreement with one of his alleged accomplices, Tierais Harris, to testify against him in that trial and (b) failing to disclose material evidence to him, for his use in that trial, concerning the credibility of two of the state’s witnesses, both his alleged accomplice, Harris, and the lead detective in the case, Reginald Early, who testified to the petitioner’s alleged confession to participating in the armed robbery and shootings on which the charged offenses were based; and (2) his trial counsel in the underlying criminal trial, J. Patten Brown III, rendered ineffective assistance in connection with the petitioner’s sentencing after that trial by failing to present an effective argument urging leniency on the petitioner’s behalf and failing to support such an argument by developing and presenting to the trial court any of the extensive mitigating information about the petitioner’s troubled background and upbringing to which he and his expert witness, Jodi DeSauteles, a social worker employed by the public defender’s office, later testified at the habeas trial. Although we conclude that the petitioner failed to establish either of his due process claims, we agree with the petitioner that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with his sentencing and that he was prejudiced by such ineffective assistance with respect to his current total effective sentence, which was later imposed on him by order of the Sentence Review Division of the Superior Court (review division) after it determined that his original total effective sentence was disproportionate and should be reduced by thirty years of imprisonment to remedy its disproportionality. Accordingly, we affirm the habeas court’s judgment insofar as it rejects the petitioner’s due process claims but reverse that judgment insofar as it rejects his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and remand the case to the habeas court with direction to vacate his modified total effective sentence in the underlying criminal case and to remand the case to the trial court for resentencing.”)

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

AC44679 - Myers v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) concluded that he failed to show that his trial counsel had performed deficiently, (2) rejected his actual innocence claim, and (3) determined that his due process rights were not violated. The petitioner further claims that the habeas court erred in denying his request for a capias and a continuance so that the petitioner could secure the appearance of an exculpatory witness at his habeas trial. In Docket No. AC 44736, the petitioner appeals, following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition for a new trial. The petitioner claims on appeal that the trial court erred in determining that his petition for a new trial was time barred pursuant to General Statutes § 52-582. As to AC 44679, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court. As to AC 44736, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

• Concurring & Dissenting

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

SC20474 - Brown v. Commissioner of Correction (Proper procedure for court to follow before dismissing a petition under PB 23-29; defective petitions under PB 23-24; “After reviewing the language of §§ 23-24 and 23-29, and their relationship to the provisions generally governing habeas corpus proceedings; see Practice Book § 23-21 et seq.; the historical development of the writ of habeas corpus and the public policy underlying the legislature’s comprehensive habeas reform; see Public Acts 2012, No. 12-115, § 1 (P.A. 12-115); we conclude that § 23-29 requires the habeas court to provide prior notice of the court’s intention to dismiss, on its own motion, a petition that it deems legally deficient and an opportunity to be heard on the papers by filing a written response. The habeas court may, in its discretion, grant oral argument or a hearing, but one is not mandated. We believe this interpretation draws a proper balance between the competing interests of affording petitioners due process while addressing the need for the expeditious resolution of habeas petitions in an effort to reach the meritorious cases. We observe that the Rules Committee remains free to amend the text of the relevant rules as it deems appropriate.”)

• Concurrence

SC20459 - Boria v. Commissioner of Correction (Companion case to Brown v. Commissioner; “For the reasons stated in Brown, we conclude that a dismissal under § 23-29 requires that a petitioner be afforded both prior notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or a written response. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and our decision in Brown.”)

• Concurrence

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

AC43985 - Ayuso v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because (1) the prosecutor’s presentation of false or misleading testimony at his criminal trial violated his due process right to a fair trial, (2) his trial counsel’s performance was deficient and deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel, (3) his appellate counsel’s performance was deficient and deprived him of his right to the effective assistance of appellate counsel, and (4) the habeas court committed an evidentiary error that entitles him to a new habeas trial. We dismiss the appeal.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law

AC41747 - Coney v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in determining that he failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of dismissal.”)

AC43289 - Soto v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance (1) during pretrial proceedings and (2) by failing to investigate and present the testimony of a confidential informant at trial. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC44654 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that (1) he was not deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel during his underlying criminal trial and (2) he knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a plea of nolo contendere to a persistent serious felony offender charge. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC44915 - Crenshaw v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his trial counsel’s performance was constitutionally deficient. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC44505 - Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction ("The court concluded that a certain ‘Settlement Agreement and Release’ the petitioner had entered into with the state of Connecticut in 2018 (settlement agreement) barred the petitioner’s habeas petition. On appeal, the petitioner argues that the settlement agreement is unenforceable because the terms of the release provision are unconscionable. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

SC20536 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction (“The primary issue on appeal is whether the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal with respect to the claim that his defense counsel at his second criminal trial rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by laboring under a conflict of interest, namely, simultaneously working as defense counsel and as an active duty police officer in a different city. Although counsel’s failure to disclose the potential conflict to the petitioner is deeply troubling, and although we conclude that the legal issues raised are fairly debatable among jurists of reason, such that certification to appeal should have been granted, we ultimately agree with the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, that the petitioner failed to prove his claim that his counsel labored under an actual conflict of interest.”)

• Concurrence

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

AC43327 - Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because (1) the habeas court erred in determining that the petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay and (2) the habeas judge improperly failed to disqualify himself. We disagree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC44504 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner, Raul Ivan Diaz, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing in part and denying in part his fourth petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claims that (1) his right to due process was violated when the court in his underlying criminal trial failed to instruct the jury on the requirement of unanimity in its verdict, and (2) he was denied effective assistance by his trial counsel, his first habeas counsel and his second habeas counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court as to the petitioner's claims as to his second habeas counsel. We dismiss the appeal as to the petitioner's remaining claims.”)

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