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.”)