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=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


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4299

AC43214 - Felder v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner first claims that the habeas court improperly determined that his petition was untimely under § 52- 470 (d) on the ground that it was not filed within the statutorily prescribed time limits, as measured from the date of the final judgment on his prior state court habeas petition, and that a habeas petition he previously had filed in federal court was not a ‘‘prior petition’’ within the meaning of § 52-470 (d) so as to reset the statutorily prescribed time limits to file a subsequent habeas petition challenging the same conviction. Alternatively, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that his purported ignorance of the filing deadline set forth in § 52-470 (d) and his belief that he could litigate his federal habeas petition before returning to state court were insufficient to demonstrate good cause within the meaning of § 52-470 (e) to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay. We disagree with the petitioner 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=4289

AC42705 - Rose v. Commissioner of Correction (Dismissal of petition as untimely under General Statutes § 52-470 (e); claim of failure to show good cause for delay; withdrawal of counsel; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that he had not established good cause for the filing of his otherwise untimely petition and, therefore, erred in rendering judgment of dismissal. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4267

AC42140 - Figueroa v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by concluding that (1) he failed to sustain his burden of establishing prejudice caused by his trial counsel’s failure to request an alibi instruction, (2) he failed to sustain his burden of establishing prejudice caused by his appellate counsel’s failure to argue on direct appeal that his constitutional right to a trial by jury was violated, and (3) his claim that his constitutional right to a trial by jury was violated was procedurally defaulted. 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=4255

AC42932 Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction (Good cause standard; "The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly determined that his purported ignorance of the filing deadline set forth in § 52-470 (d) (1) and his lack of meaningful access to a law library during some portions of his term of incarceration were insufficient to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court."

...

"The petitioner asserted that, because of his lack of access to legal resources during segregation and lockdown and his former habeas counsel’s failure to inform him of the time limitations of § 52-470, he was unaware of the deadline for filing his second habeas petition, and this lack of knowledge necessarily established ‘good cause’ for any delay.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4237

AC43322 - Kondjoua v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner . . . 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 an improper successive petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (3). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly dismissed his habeas petition as successive. We dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Zigadto, Janet

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4215

AC43170 - Wright v. Commissioner of Correction ("The self-represented petitioner, Ian Wright, appeals following the habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal from that court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 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 it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his petition when it reasoned that the petitioner did not have a liberty interest in a deportation parole eligibility hearing pursuant to General Statutes § 54-125d. We dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4208

AC39651 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; Alford Doctrine; “The petitioner, Raul Diaz, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The sole question presented by the petitioner on appeal is ‘[d]id the habeas court erroneously conclude that trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to dismiss the charge of home invasion did not constitute ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington [466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984)]?’ The petitioner had pleaded guilty to that charge pursuant to the Alford doctrine. This court, however, affirmed the judgment of the habeas court, after raising, sua sponte, the issue of whether the petitioner had waived his right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and deciding that the petitioner did in fact waive that right by pleading guilty under the Alford doctrine.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4203

AC42437 - Turner v. Commissioner of Correction (“Second amended fifth petition for a writ of habeas corpus; On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by (1) denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) dismissing his claim that he was deprived of a fair trial during his first habeas trial, (3) denying his claims that the prosecuting authority violated his state and federal constitutional rights by failing (a) to disclose exculpatory evidence and (b) to preserve the exculpatory evidence, and (4) denying his motion to open the judgment and disqualify the judicial authority. We dismiss the appeal”.)


Habeas Law Supreme Court Slip Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4195

SC20433 - Cookish v. Commissioner of Correction (“The habeas court, acting sua sponte and without providing the petitioner with notice or a hearing, dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 for lack of jurisdiction. The habeas court determined that dismissal pursuant to § 23-29 (1) was warranted and that the petition should be returned because it was apparent, on the face of the petition, that the petitioner was not in custody for the conviction being challenged. On appeal, the petitioner asserts that the habeas court improperly (1) dismissed the petition under § 23-29 without first appointing him counsel and providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard, and (2) failed to construe the habeas petition as a petition for a writ of error coram nobis.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4190

AC42515 - Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner contends that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal because he properly had established in his petition for a writ of habeas corpus that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel had been violated during his criminal trial when a jury found him guilty of assault in the first degree with a firearm and assault of a peace officer with a firearm. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal".)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4172

AC41886 - Schuler v. Commissioner of Correction (Appeal from the denial of petition for a writ of habeas corpus, conviction of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a)(3). “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 https://jud.ct.gov/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=4163

AC41159 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim that prosecutor intentionally committed violations of Brady v. Maryland; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly denied his request for an evidentiary hearing, and (3) improperly denied his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We conclude that the court properly exercised 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=4147

AC42761 - Pentland v. Commissioner (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that he already had served his sentence, and, therefore, was not ‘in custody.’ We conclude that, with respect to the convictions challenged in the amended petition, the petitioner was not in the custody of the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9