AC42942 - Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction (On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in rejecting his claim that his prior habeas attorneys were ineffective in not pursuing the claim that his trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for their failure to challenge the trial court’s jury instructions as to (1) the element of intent required for the specific offenses alleged against him and (2) his affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.)
AC44390 - O'Reagan v.
Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court erred (1) in dismissing
in part his habeas petition after finding that he was not in custody on two of
his challenged convictions, and (2) in denying his habeas petition after
concluding that his trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance. We
disagree with both of the petitioner’s claims and, therefore, affirm the
judgment of the habeas court.")
AC44160 - Sease v.
Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner raises three
principal issues on appeal: (1) the court abused its discretion in denying
certification to appeal; (2) his right of due process was violated by the
prosecuting authority’s knowing presentation of false testimony at his criminal
trial; and (3) the court improperly denied his claim that his right to
effective assistance of trial counsel at sentencing was violated. We make no
determination as to whether the petitioner prevails on his third claim, but we
conclude that the habeas court improperly denied his petition for certification
to appeal, and remand the matter to the habeas court for additional factual
findings regarding the performance prong of his ineffective assistance of counsel
at sentencing claim. We leave the petitioner’s second claim to another day in
light of our remand order on his third claim.”)
AC43862 - Jones 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)
deprived him of his constitutional and statutory rights by failing to admit
into evidence or consider the transcripts of the underlying criminal trial, (3)
improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective
assistance, and (4) improperly concluded that there were no violations of Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), at his
underlying criminal trial. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its
discretion in denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal
and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.”)