AC44979 - Carter 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 to investigate evidence containing
biological material found at the crime scene and to
submit that evidence for DNA analysis. We affirm the
judgment of the habeas court.”)
AC44160 - Sease v. Commissioner of Correction (“Having made no determination in Sease I as to
whether the petitioner ultimately prevailed on his claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing and
having left undecided the petitioner’s additional appellate claims, we must now resolve, after remand, the
following claims of the petitioner. The petitioner claims
that the habeas court improperly (1) determined on
remand that his trial counsel’s failure to investigate his
mental health background prior to sentencing and his
failure to focus further on that background during sentencing arguments did not fall below the exercise of
reasonable professional judgment under the first prong
of Strickland, (2) rejected his claim that trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance by failing to challenge
uncharged misconduct testimony by a state’s witness,
and (3) rejected his claim that the state violated his
right to due process by the knowing presentation of
false testimony. The habeas court denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal, and he claims
that the court abused its discretion in so deciding. We
agree with only the petitioner’s claim that the court
improperly determined that his trial counsel had not
rendered constitutionally deficient performance at sentencing, and we disagree with the petitioner’s other
claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the
habeas court only with respect to the petitioner’s claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing,
vacate the petitioner’s sentences, and order a new sentencing hearing.”)
AC44892 - Reese v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner raises two substantive
claims: (1) Judge Newson improperly dismissed one
count of his amended petition on the basis of res judicata and (2) Judge Chaplin improperly denied his
motion to sequester one of the respondent’s witnesses,
Attorney C. Robert Satti, who prosecuted the petitioner
in his underlying criminal trial and prosecuted one of
the petitioner’s witnesses at the habeas trial for committing perjury during the petitioner’s criminal trial. The
respondent argues that the petitioner’s two claims are
unreviewable because he did not identify them in his
petition for certification. In response, the petitioner,
after recognizing that decisions of this court require
that any claims on appeal be presented first in a petition
for certification, argues that ‘‘it can hardly be gainsaid
that the claims of error [the petitioner] has enumerated
in this appeal were not raised before, and decided by,
the habeas court.’’ He concludes by arguing that,
‘‘although the petition for certification to appeal that
was filed in this case is broadly worded, the claims that
[the petitioner] has pursued on appeal clearly fall within
its penumbra. The habeas court’s denial of the petition
for certification in its entirety was a discretionary act,
subject to review by this court. Further, and more
importantly, the claims were fully litigated below, both
by way of written motions and at oral argument. Consequently, there can be no contention that it would be an
‘ambuscade’ of the habeas court for this court to assess
the claims on their merits.’’ We are not persuaded by
the petitioner’s arguments.”)