AC47604 – Alston v. Commissioner of Correction (“Following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Ira Alston, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29, his second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (operative habeas petition), in which he alleged, in count five, that the habeas court in a prior habeas matter improperly denied his application for the appointment of appellate counsel. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the second habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly dismissed count five of the operative habeas petition pursuant to § 23-29 (2) for failure to state a claim on which habeas relief could be granted. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”)

AC47426 – Haughey v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition for certification to appeal and denial of petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “He claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion when it denied his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) erred by rendering judgment on the petition before hearing and resolving the petitioner’s motion to dismiss counsel and to appoint new counsel (motion to dismiss counsel). We conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion when it denied the petition for certification to appeal and remand this case to the habeas court for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the merits of the petitioner’s motion to dismiss counsel.”)

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

AC47644 - Maner v. Commissioner of Correction (“He claims on appeal, inter alia, that (1) the court improperly denied his freestanding constitutional claim, which asserted that the police had illegally obtained records containing his historical cell site location information (CSLI) in violation of his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, (2) the 2016 amendments to General Statutes § 54-47aa contained in Public Acts 2016, No. 16-148, § 1 (2016 amendments), which require the police to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before obtaining historical CSLI, should apply retroactively in the present case, (3) certain CSLI obtained by the police did not comply with General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 54-47aa, and (4) the court incorrectly concluded that any error in the admission of the petitioner’s CSLI was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. For the reasons that follow, we reject the petitioner’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

AC47404 - Howard v. Commissioner of Correction (Alford doctrine; one count of murder; violation of probation; “The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) denied her claim that she was denied the effective assistance of trial counsel and (2) dismissed her claim that her guilty plea was involuntary. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

SC21018 - Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment of the habeas court. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.”)

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

AC47784 - Gray v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he is not entitled to relief from his 2019 conviction for possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a), based on the state’s failure to disclose to him certain impeachment evidence concerning one of the state’s key witnesses at his criminal trial, because it incorrectly determined that such undisclosed evidence was not ‘‘material either to guilt or to punishment,’’ as required to prove a due process violation under the test set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963). We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC47894 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction (“After a hearing, the habeas court dismissed the petition for failure to demonstrate good cause to excuse the late filing of the petition. The petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the court denied. On appeal, the petitioner claims, inter alia, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. However, the petitioner has failed to allege or demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we dismiss his appeal. See Goguen v. Commissioner of Correction, 341 Conn. 508, 523, 267 A.3d 831 (2021) (‘although the burden of obtaining appellate review of the threshold question under [Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 640 A.2d 601 (1994)] and its progeny is minimal, the petitioner must at least allege that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal’ (emphasis in original)); see also Goguen v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 524 (‘‘there is no exception to the requirement that a habeas petitioner must expressly allege that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal when the petitioner is self-represented’’). The appeal is dismissed.”)

AC47290 - Pagan v. Smith (“In the criminal matter underlying this habeas corpus action, the petitioner, Ricardo Pagan, was found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect after an uncontested trial at which the state agreed not to oppose the petitioner’s claim that he lacked substantial capacity to control his conduct within the requirements of the law. See General Statutes § 53a-13 (a). In his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus (amended petition), the petitioner alleged that his counsel from a prior habeas action (first habeas action), Justine Miller, rendered ineffective assistance by, inter alia, failing to raise certain claims concerning the alleged failure of his criminal trial counsel, Mary Haselkamp, to advise him of the consequences of pursuing a defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner appeals from the judgment of the second habeas court denying in part his amended petition. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred by (1) concluding that Miller did not render ineffective assistance, and (2) declining to address certain aspects of his claim that Miller provided ineffective assistance. We reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC47034 - Lisboa 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) incorrectly concluded that he failed to establish good cause within the meaning of § 52-470 (e) for his late filed petition, and (3) improperly denied his request for appointed counsel for the good cause hearing. We dismiss the appeal.”)

AC46901 - White v. Commissioner of Correction (Conviction of home invasion; conspiracy to commit burglary; robbery in the first degree; tampering with a witness; “He claims on appeal that the court improperly (1) denied his freestanding constitutional claim asserting, pursuant to McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2018), that his criminal trial counsel violated his right to client autonomy under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution by effectively conceding the petitioner’s guilt to the conspiracy to commit burglary charge during closing argument without obtaining his consent to do so and despite his desire to maintain his innocence; (2) concluded that his criminal trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by (a) conceding the petitioner’s guilt during closing argument and/or failing to object to the prosecutor’s characterization of that concession during rebuttal closing argument; (b) failing to attack adequately the credibility of one of the petitioner’s alleged coconspirators, Trayvon Dunning, during Dunning’s cross-examination, or to object to the admission into evidence of an unredacted copy of a cooperation agreement between Dunning and the state in exchange for Dunning’s testimony against the petitioner; (c) failing to seek the dismissal of all charges on the ground that the state had monitored and recorded his prison telephone calls while the petitioner was self-represented and failing to seek to suppress the state’s use of such recordings; and (d) failing to object to the trial court’s canvass regarding his waiver of his right to self-representation; and (3) excluded as irrelevant Dunning’s proffered testimony that the gun used during the commission of the underlying crimes was fake. For the reasons that follow, we reject the petitioner’s claims and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46768 - Wright v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred by (1) rejecting his claim that he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel allegedly advised him to flee the state during trial, (2) precluding him from testifying as to the substance of that alleged advice, (3) failing to consider certain evidence relevant to his claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in connection with his handling of the trial, (4) failing to address whether trial counsel’s alleged concealment from the trial court of his role in the petitioner’s decision to flee constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and/or a conflict of interest, and (5) failing to address whether he was deprived of his right to the effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Concurrence

AC47267 - Nealy v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal the habeas court’s decision and (2) improperly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of criminal trial counsel. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

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

AC46189 - Papantoniou v. Commissioner of Correction (“The court granted the petition after concluding that the petitioner’s sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel was violated due to an undisclosed, actual conflict of interest on the part of his criminal trial counsel, Attorney Glenn Conway. On appeal, the respondent claims that the court (1) erroneously found that Conway simultaneously represented the petitioner and James Samperi, Jr., a witness who testified on behalf of the state, at or near the time of the petitioner’s criminal trial, and (2) improperly concluded that the petitioner had established that Conway was burdened by an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected his representation of the petitioner at the petitioner’s criminal trial. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court. See footnote 2 of this opinion.”)

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

AC46316 - Clark v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner principally claims that the habeas court erred in concluding that the June 2, 2009 proceeding in his criminal matter, during which the trial court allowed his trial counsel to withdraw from representing him upon an oral motion made while the petitioner was not present, was not a critical stage of his prosecution, and, therefore, his due process rights were not violated. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC47312 - Riccio v. Commissioner of Correction (Meaning of "custody"; conditional discharge; “The petitioner claims that the court erred by dismissing his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that he was not in custody pursuant to General Statutes § 52-466 while on conditional discharge. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC47929 - Alicea v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the court incorrectly determined that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance with respect to purported misadvice regarding the admissibility into evidence of the petitioner’s prior convictions were he to testify in support of his claim of self-defense. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46617 - Daniel W. E. v. Commissioner of Correction (Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus; “The petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly construed the allegations in his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, resulting in a deprivation of his right to due process. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and, therefore, dismiss this appeal.”)

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

AC46832 - Khan v. Commissioner of Correction (“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 action. We conclude that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and improperly dismissed the habeas action. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law

AC47425 - Smith v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Stacy Smith, appeals, following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance in advising him with respect to a pretrial plea offer from the state. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

AC47330- Harris v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that (1) his guilty plea to risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2) was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered in violation of his right to due process because he was not advised that he would be required to register as a sex offender, and (2) his trial counsel, Susan Brown, rendered ineffective assistance in failing to so advise him. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC47136 - Roger B. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, he claims that the court (1) incorrectly applied the law of the case doctrine to conclude that it was bound by this court’s most recent decision in this matter, and (2) improperly denied his habeas petition, which was predicated on the alleged ineffective assistance of his prior habeas counsel and trial counsel. We agree with the petitioner’s second claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

SC21002 - Clue v. Commissioner of Correction ("This certified appeal requires us to determine the scope of a habeas court's authority to open a judgment outside of the four month period set forth in General Statutes § 52-212a.[ The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which concluded that, in the context of a habeas case, the court has the authority to consider an otherwise untimely motion to open that is based on the ineffective assistance of habeas counsel. See Clue v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. App. 803, 820–21, 309 A.3d 1239 (2024). The respondent contends that a habeas court lacks authority to open a judgment outside of the four month statutory deadline under a common-law exception for ineffective assistance of habeas counsel claims. We agree with the respondent. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC21002- Dissent

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

AC46954 - Owen 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) abused its discretion when it required that the withdrawal of certain counts of his petition be with prejudice, and (3) improperly concluded that he had failed to prove ineffective assistance of counsel. We dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC46900 - Dixon v. Commissioner of Correction- (“On appeal, the petitioner contends that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his first habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise a claim that his criminal trial counsel did not provide adequate advice on a pretrial plea offer. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.”

AC47171 - Moye v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly failed to conclude that (1) his criminal trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by not retaining a crime scene reconstruction expert and (2) his prior habeas counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to raise in a previous habeas action the foregoing claim of ineffective assistance directed at his trial counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC47706 - Stanley v. Commissioner of Correction (“The plaintiff sought damages from the defendants resulting from a prison disciplinary report that was issued for his misconduct while incarcerated, which resulted in sanctions. Due to the inadequacy of the briefs filed by the plaintiff in this appeal, we are unable to undertake appellate review of any claim of error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

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

AC47195 - Narcisse v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Addiction Services (“In the operative habeas petition, he alleged that his plea of not guilty with the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, made pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13 (a), was not made knowingly and voluntarily because he was not canvassed pursuant to Duperry v. Solnit, 261 Conn. 309, 329, 803 A.2d 287 (2002), and that his criminal trial counsel, Attorney Kim W. Mendola (trial counsel), had provided ineffective assistance. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that (1) the underlying criminal proceeding was contested and adversarial in nature and, thus, that the petitioner was not required to be canvassed pursuant to Duperry, and (2) his trial counsel did not render deficient performance by failing to advise the petitioner regarding the canvass requirements of Duperry. We disagree with both claims and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC46937 - Abdus-Sabur v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the respondent claims that the court incorrectly determined that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena and present the testimony of the petitioner’s brother. We agree and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.”)

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

AC46971 - Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction (Interlocutory appeal pursuant to § 52-470; untimely filing of the petition; “On appeal, the petitioner raises several claims related to the habeas court’s partial dismissal of his petition. We do not reach the merits of these claims because the decision from which the petitioner appeals is not an appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.”)

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

AC47144 - Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and that the court improperly concluded that his second habeas counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to raise a claim that his trial counsel failed to adequately advise him regarding the state’s plea offers. We conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition for certification to appeal and, therefore, dismiss this appeal.”)

AC46876 - Walsh v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) dismissed count one of his petition on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and (2) concluded that he failed to establish good cause for his late filed petition. With respect to both claims, 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