AC46835 - Bonilla v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court committed plain error when the habeas judge failed to disqualify himself on the ground that he had represented the petitioner in an unrelated matter several years earlier. The petitioner also claims that the court erred in rejecting his claims of ineffective assistance of his prior habeas counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46729 - Canady v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal, (2) rejected his claim that he was deprived of the effective assistance of trial counsel, and (3) concluded that his due process claim was procedurally defaulted. We disagree that the court improperly denied the petition for certification and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC45965, AC45966 - Balbuena v. Commissioner of Correction (“These consolidated appeals arise from separate petitions for writs of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Guillermo Balbuena, challenging his 2004 conviction of sexual assault and unlawful restraint (amended first petition) and his 2014 conviction of conspiracy to commit murder (amended second petition). In Docket No. AC 45965, the petitioner appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his amended first petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and he claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the amended first petition because the petitioner no longer was in custody on the 2004 conviction when he filed it. In Docket No. AC 45966, the petitioner appeals from the judgment of the court dismissing in part and denying in part the amended second petition, and he claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed the actual innocence count for failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief could be granted and (2) denied the ineffective assistance of counsel count after trial. We affirm the judgments of the habeas court.”)

AC46490 - Gusan v. Commissioner of Correction (“Upon the granting of certification to appeal, the petitioner, Brandon Gusan, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his corrected, revised, first amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court erred in rejecting his claim that his right to the effective assistance of trial counsel was violated by virtue of his trial counsel’s failure (1) to file a motion for discovery with respect to data that had been extracted from his cell phone and (2) to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained following an allegedly illegal traffic stop. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46947- Cervantes v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Marcelo Cervantes, 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. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by (1) denying him certification to appeal and (2) improperly rejecting his claim that the sentencing court violated his right to due process by imposing a lengthier sentence because he had pursued a motion to suppress. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner's appeal.")

AC46627- Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Dhati Coleman, appeals, following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he was not in custody as a result of the conviction that he sought to challenge when the petition was filed. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC47086- Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Robert Stevenson, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of good cause pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (b). The petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal and (2) raised the issue of good cause under § 52-470 (b) before the pleadings were closed. We conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and improperly dismissed the petition under § 52-470 (b) before the pleadings were closed. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the case to the habeas court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.")

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

AC46199 - Santaniello v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his claim that his prior habeas counsel performed deficiently by failing to allege that (1) both his trial counsel and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to raise the claim that the admission of a jailhouse informant’s statements at trial violated his right to confrontation under the United States constitution pursuant to Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), and (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he waived the petitioner’s claim that the state violated his right to counsel pursuant to Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206, 84 S. Ct. 1199, 12 L. Ed. 2d 246 (1964), by using the same jailhouse informant to elicit incriminating statements from him. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46744 - Lopez v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying him certification to appeal; (2) improperly concluded that the petitioner’s trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and present the testimony of Jose Lopez III (Lopez III), the petitioner’s son, at his criminal trial; and (3) improperly concluded that the petitioner was not prejudiced by his trial counsel’s failure to investigate and present the testimony of Zeequan Groves at his criminal trial. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying him certification to appeal. We disagree with the habeas court’s analysis of the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to Lopez III, but we do not, in this opinion, disturb its judgment denying the petitioner relief on that claim. Instead, we remand the matter to the habeas court to resolve the factual question of whether, had Lopez III testified at the petitioner’s criminal trial, there is a reasonable probability that his testimony exculpating the petitioner would have been credited by the jury. We retain jurisdiction over this appeal pending the remand and subsequent appellate proceedings. In light of our remand order on the petitioner’s second claim, we leave his third claim for another day.”)

AC46554 - Mitchell v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2) violated his constitutional right to due process by denying him a full and fair hearing; (3) improperly granted summary judgment for the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, on his claim that his kidnapping conviction violated the state and federal constitutions because the criminal trial court failed to instruct the jury in accordance with State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008); and (4) erred in concluding that his prior habeas counsel did not provide constitutionally ineffective assistance. We dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC46658 - Brown v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Mozzelle Brown, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his third amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court erred in (1) denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) concluding that his due process claim related to the state's failure to disclose an agreement or understanding between the prosecutor and a cooperating witness was procedurally defaulted. We agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. We also agree with the petitioner that the habeas court erred in refusing to consider the merits of his due process claim. After reaching the merits of that claim, we conclude that the alleged constitutional violation exists and that he is entitled to a new trial. Accordingly, we remand the case to the habeas court with direction to render judgment granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, to vacate the petitioner's conviction of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a and 53a-48 (a) and murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54 (a) and 53a-8, and to order a new trial on those offenses.")

AC46356 - Franko v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Lawrence Franko, appeals following the denial by the habeas court of his petition for certification to appeal from the dismissal of his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470. On appeal, he claims that the court improperly determined that he failed to demonstrate good cause within the meaning of § 52-470 (e) to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay in the filing of his third habeas petition. He also claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. We dismiss the appeal.")

AC46615 - Gentile v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Gino Gentile, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing as untimely his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) committed plain error in determining that his habeas petition was untimely and (2) erred in concluding that he failed to establish good cause for this late filed petition. With respect to the former, we conclude that the petitioner has not established plain error. As to the latter, in light of our Supreme Court's recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333, 304 A.3d 431 (2023), which recognized that ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute good cause for the delay in filing, and this court's subsequent decisions in Ibrahim v. Commissioner of Correction, 229 Conn. App. 658, ___ A.3d ___ (2024), Coney v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 450, 315 A.3d 1161 (2024), Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 341, 314 A.3d 659 (2024), Rapp v. Commissioner of Correction, 224 Conn. App. 336, 311 A.3d 249, cert. denied, 349 Conn. 909, 314 A.3d 601 (2024), and 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 the case remanded for a new good cause hearing.")

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

AC46591 - Tierinni v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition; three evidentiary objections; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly sustained three evidentiary objections made by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction. We dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC46422 - Walker v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to demonstrate that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to move for a mistrial during his criminal trial because an exhibit, specifically, an RT-60 form, was admitted into evidence and briefly published to the jury, and that exhibit evidenced that he had been incarcerated near the time of that trial. The petitioner asserts that publication of this evidence vitiated the presumption of innocence to which he was entitled, and a mistrial was the only way to remedy this violation of due process. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the habeas court denying the petition.")

AC46279 - Dearing v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition; alleged ineffective assistance of criminal trial counsel, appellate counsel, and prior habeas counsel; “The petitioner claims on appeal that the habeas court improperly failed to conclude that (1) his criminal trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing (a) to engage and present the testimony of a child abuse expert, (b) to obtain certain confidential records of the victim, and (c) to object to or have stricken certain testimony provided by the state’s expert on child forensic interviews; (2) appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in his direct criminal appeal by failing to challenge the trial court’s decision not to release the victim’s confidential records; and (3) prior habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise in his previous habeas action the foregoing claims of ineffective assistance directed at trial and appellate counsel. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46538 - Burgos v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance; competency;“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by stipulating to the petitioner’s competency to stand trial. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46251 - Taft v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance of counsel; “On appeal, the respondent claims that the habeas court improperly granted the petitioner’s second amended habeas petition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the alleged ineffective assistance of his first habeas counsel. We agree with the respondent and reverse the judgment of the court.”)

AC45797 - Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction (Ineffective assistance of counsel; On appeal, he claims that the court improperly concluded that his criminal trial counsel were not ineffective in (1) advising him to plead guilty, (2) failing to raise a diminished capacity defense, (3) failing to raise the issue of his competency at two different proceedings, and (4) advising him that the court would not accept his guilty plea after the issue of his competency had been raised at that same proceeding. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46262 - Ibrahim v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in concluding that he failed to establish good cause for his late filed petition. In particular, the petitioner argues that evidence of his prior habeas counsel’s failure to advise him of the statutory deadline for filing a new habeas petition following the withdrawal of his then pending petition alleging a double jeopardy violation would establish ineffective assistance of counsel, which constitutes good cause for the delay in filing. In light of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333, 304 A.3d 431 (2023), and this court’s subsequent decisions in Coney v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 450, 315 A.3d 1161 (2024), Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 341, 314 A.3d 659 (2024), Rapp v. Commissioner of Correction, 224 Conn. App. 336, 311 A.3d 249, cert. denied, 349 Conn. 909, 314 A.3d 601 (2024), and 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 the case remanded for a new good cause hearing.”)

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

AC46542 - Cator v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying him certification to appeal from its judgment (1) dismissing the first and third counts of his operative petition, which alleged due process violations and ineffective assistance of trial counsel, respectively; (2) rejecting his claim that he was improperly excluded from a critical stage of the proceedings during his criminal trial; (3) concluding that he had failed to establish that his first habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to plead and prove a Brady claim and that he had been excluded from a critical stage of his criminal trial; and (4) determining that he had failed to demonstrate that his second and third habeas counsel were ineffective for failing to plead and prove the aforementioned ineffectiveness claims against his first habeas counsel. Although we agree with the petitioner that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying him certification to appeal, we affirm the court’s judgment on its merits.”)

AC46727 - Revels v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was not violated when his trial counsel (1) conducted inadequate cross-examinations, (2) failed to introduce into evidence the petitioner’s cell phone records, and (3) failed to consult or present experts on false confessions and crime scene reconstruction. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)

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

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