AC41640 - John B. v. Commissioner of Correction (Affirmative defense of mental disease or defect pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-13; whether due process rights were violated under federal and state constitutions when trial court failed to instruct jury; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that (1) the trial court’s failure to charge the jury pursuant to Salamon was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and (2) trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court”.)

AC41930 - Kondjoua v. Commissioner of Correction (“The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claims that (1) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise him properly of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), and (2) his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the habeas court”.)

AC38272 - Cooke v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner asserts that (1) his claims were properly certified for appellate review by the habeas court, (2) the cumulative effect of his trial counsel’s errors deprived him of effective assistance of counsel, (3) his trial counsel was ineffective in not ensuring that he was competent to stand trial, and (4) the court erred in failing to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Office of the Chief Public Defender to provide him with legal assistance to pursue the present appeal. The respondent, in turn, argues that the habeas court lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for certification to appeal more than four months after its initial denial of certification to appeal. In response, the petitioner contends that the court had continuing jurisdiction to grant the petition for certification to appeal. We agree that the court had continuing jurisdiction to grant the petition for certification to appeal, but conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in denying both the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition for a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court”.)