The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.
Habeas Corpus Law

Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=715

AC38410Darryl W. v. Commissioner of Correction (“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly denied his amended petition because the record established that his criminal trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to file a request to charge the jury and/or to object to the trial court’s jury instruction and (2) failing to direct the trial court in its response to the jury’s inquiry on operability. We conclude that the habeas court properly determined that the petitioner failed to establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in that he failed to establish that he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to file a request to charge the jury and/or to object to the jury instruction and that counsel performed deficiently by failing to direct the trial court in its response to the jury’s inquiry. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.”)

AC38415Toccaline v. Commissioner of Correction (Third petition for writ of habeas corpus; “He appeals following the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction. He claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and improperly dismissed four counts of his third amended petition. We dismiss the appeal.”)


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=709

AC39049Williams v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition of writ of habeas corpus; "He claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to prove that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing (1) to challenge the state’s medical evidence by consulting and calling as a witness a medical expert with experience evaluating medical evidence in child sexual abuse cases, and (2) to present the testimony of John Strugar, a neurosurgeon, who performed back surgery on the petitioner in August, 1999. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC38597Little v. Commissioner of Correction (Denial of petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court; second habeas petition; "He claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal; (2) improperly concluded that his guilty plea to kidnapping in the first degree was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in light of our Supreme Court’s subsequent reinterpretation of our kidnapping statutes in State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008); and (3) improperly concluded that he was not actually innocent of kidnapping in the first degree. We conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying the petition for certification to appeal, but that the habeas court properly denied the petitioner’s second habeas petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=702

SC19787 - James v. Commissioner of Correction ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the calculation of presentence confinement credit should be adjusted for concurrent sentences imposed under one docket number but on different dates. The petitioner, Latone James, appeals from the denial of his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which alleged, inter alia, that the calculation of his presentence confinement credit was incorrect. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, claims that it calculated the petitioner’s presentence confinement credit pursuant to General Statutes § 18-98d (a) (1) and the framework provided by this court in Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 271 Conn. 808, 860 A.2d 715 (2004). We agree with the petitioner and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the habeas court in part.")


Habeas Appellate Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=693

AC38491 - Byrd v. Commissioner of Correction (Second amended petition; "He asserts a number of claims on appeal, but his primary claim is that the habeas court improperly concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his ex post facto claim alleged in count one of his petition. We conclude that the habeas court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both counts of his petition and, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Habeas Appellate Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=687

AC38803 - Santos v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because it improperly concluded that (1) the prosecutor in his criminal trial did not knowingly present false or misleading testimony against him, and (2) his trial defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance of counsel. We dismiss the appeal.")

AC38946 - Walker v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) his defense counsel did not have an actual conflict of interest at the time of his representation of the petitioner and (2) he abandoned his due process claim that he was denied his right to be present at an in-chambers conference. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=677

AC39330 - Miller v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance when advising him of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. We agree that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and that trial counsel rendered deficient performance when advising the petitioner of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. We conclude, however, that the record is inadequate to determine whether the petitioner was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the matter for further habeas proceedings in accordance with this opinion.")

AC39401 - Pereira v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim that petitioner’s due process rifhts were violated as result of a kidnapping conviction; jury instruction pursuant to State v. Salamon; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his habeas petition and (2) improperly denied his habeas petition. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the petitioner’s appeal.”)

AC39161 - Pentland v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly dismissed his petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of an erroneous conclusion that he was not in the custody of the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, on the challenged conviction when he filed his petition, as required by General Statutes § 52-466. We conclude that the petitioner did not allege sufficient facts in his petition to establish the habeas court’s subject matter jurisdiction to hear his petition. Accordingly, the judgment of the habeas court is affirmed.")



Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=662

SC19830 - Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction (Claim of ineffective assistance; "The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (5), based on the terms of a stipulated judgment, filed by the petitioner and the respondent in connection with a previous habeas action concerning the same two trials, that barred the petitioner from filing any further such actions pertaining to those trials. The habeas court granted that motion, and the petitioner appeals, claiming that he did not knowingly and voluntarily enter into the stipulated judgment and, therefore, that the habeas court improperly granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss. We conclude that the petitioner did not properly raise his challenge to the enforceability of the stipulated judgment in the habeas court and, further, that the stipulated judgment was a legally sufficient ground for dismissal of the present habeas action. We therefore affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=635

AC38371 - Salters v. Commissioner of Correction ("On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) failed to apply the strict standard of materiality to his claim of a Brady violation, which included factual allegations that the prosecution knowingly relied on false testimony; (2) denied his claim of ineffective assistance by his prior habeas trial counsel (habeas counsel) for failing to raise a claim that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel (trial counsel) was ineffective for failing to raise a claim of instructional error; (3) failed to apply the ‘‘findings’’ that this court made in his appeal from the judgment in his first habeas case; and (4) found that the decision of his appellate counsel on direct appeal (appellate counsel) to forgo raising a prosecutorial impropriety claim was a reasonable strategic decision. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Roy, Christopher

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=632

SC19565 - Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The present appeal requires us to determine the appropriate test for resolving whether an inmate’s prison classification implicates a protected liberty interest. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Anthony A., for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Anthony A. v. Commissioner of Correction, 159 Conn. App. 226, 242, 122 A.3d 730 (2015). The respondent claims that, contrary to the conclusion of the Appellate Court, the habeas court properly dismissed the petition on the basis that the petitioner failed to allege a protected liberty interest. The petitioner responds that the allegations in the petition, which claim that he was incorrectly classified as a sex offender and that he suffered negative consequences as a result of that erroneous classification, sufficiently alleged a cognizable liberty interest to confer jurisdiction on the court. We agree with the petitioner and affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=615

AC38544 - Torres v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he was not entitled to earn ‘‘risk reduction earned credit,’’ pursuant to General Statutes § 18-98e, during the period of time he was confined as a pretrial detainee, and improperly concluded that he was not deprived of his right to equal protection guaranteed by the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. We agree that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal, but conclude that it properly denied his second petition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Booth, George

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=600

AC39275 - Tilus v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas corpus; claim that trial counsel's joint representation of petitioner and accomplice in pretrial phase presented conflict of interest and that there was no valid waiver of potential conflict in violation of petitioner's constitutional right to conflict free representation; "The petitioner, Tinesse Tilus, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that his state and federal constitutional rights to (1) conflict free counsel and (2) the effective assistance of counsel were not violated. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=598

SC19527 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction ("We granted the respondent’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following question: ‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that it was improper, based on the record of this habeas petition, for the trial court to sua sponte dismiss the petition on procedural default grounds?’ Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, 318 Conn. 903, 122 A.3d 632 (2015). After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=591

AC37565 - Bigelow v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that counsel in both his underlying criminal prosecution and his first habeas proceeding rendered ineffective assistance. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC39090 - Dull v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "The petitioner… appeals from the habeas court’s dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d). Specifically, he argues that he established good cause for the delay in the filing of his third habeas corpus petition. We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Supreme Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=576

SC19855 - Perez v. Commissioner of Correction ("This case presents challenges to the constitutionality of substantive and procedural amendments to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 54-125a, which governs parole eligibility for persons who received a definite sentence or aggregate sentence of more than two years, as applied to an offender who was sentenced before the amendments took effect. More specifically, we consider statutory amendments (1) eliminating earned risk reduction credit from the calculation of a violent offender’s parole eligibility date, when such credit was not available at the time the offense was committed; Public Acts 2013, No. 13-3, § 59 (P.A. 13-3); and (2) altering parole eligibility hearing procedures to allow the Board of Pardons and Paroles to forgo holding a hearing. Public Acts 2013, No. 13-247, § 376 (P.A. 13-247)… We agree with the petitioner to the extent that the habeas court improperly dismissed many of the claims raised in the petition solely on the basis of the ‘‘speculative nature’’ of earned risk reduction credit. Nevertheless, applying the proper test to each claim raised by the petitioner, we hold that the habeas court lacked jurisdiction over the petitioner’s claims. We therefore affirm the judgment of the habeas court dismissing the petition.")

SC19854 - James E. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The sole issue in this appeal is whether the habeas court properly dismissed the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, James E., alleging that a 2013 amendment to General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 54-125a repealing a provision advancing certain inmates’ parole eligibility dates by earned risk reduction credit violated the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution. See Public Acts 2013, No. 13-3, § 59 (P.A. 13-3)... On appeal, the petitioner claims that the proper comparison for purposes of the ex post facto analysis should have been between the provision in effect at the time of his sentencing and the challenged provision thereafter enacted, which would have reflected that he has suffered an increase in punishment. For the reasons set forth in Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357, 374–75, 378–80, A.3d (2017), we disagree. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=570

AC39280 - Hampton v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel fails on the prejudice prong of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly denied the petition and, accordingly, affirm the judgment… For the petitioner to prevail on the prejudice prong of his habeas claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, however, the high burden is on him to prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the trial as to count eight would have been different. The petitioner has failed to show that his theory of juror nonunanimity was anything more than speculative and, thus, has not undermined confidence in the outcome. We, therefore, conclude that the habeas court did not improperly conclude that the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel fails on the prejudice prong of the Strickland test. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=555

AC39134 - Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "First, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because his right to due process and a fair trial were violated by the prosecutor’s failure to disclose material evidence that was favorable to the defense, namely, that an express or implied agreement existed between the state and one of the state’s witnesses, Eddie Ortiz, in exchange for Ortiz’ testimony at the petitioner’s criminal trial. In connection with this claim, the petitioner also claims that the state failed to correct false testimony provided by Ortiz concerning the existence of such an agreement. Second, the petitioner claims that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated by virtue of representation afforded to him by counsel in a prior habeas proceeding. The petitioner claims that prior habeas counsel failed to adequately pursue his claim that his right to due process was violated by the state’s failure to disclose an agreement reached with Ortiz prior to the petitioner’s trial. Because we conclude that the court’s denial of the petition for certification to appeal reflected a proper exercise of its discretion, we dismiss the appeal.")

AC38530 - Clinton S. v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because the record established that his criminal trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to present evidence of an alternative exculpatory explanation for the allegations made by the victim and (2) failing to investigate adequately and present evidence of the employment records of the petitioner and his wife, M. Additionally, in connection with the claim regarding M.’s employment records, the petitioner claims that the habeas court applied the wrong standard with respect to whether he was prejudiced by counsel’s allegedly deficient performance. We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.")


Judicial Branch Now Publishing Headnotes for its Supreme & Appellate Court Opinions

   by Booth, George

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=534

The Judicial Branch has announced that it is now publishing a syllabus (headnote) at the top of each Supreme and Appellate Court opinion:

The Judicial Branch is now posting online headnotes for both Supreme and Appellate Court opinions. These headnotes, which accompany individual Supreme and Appellate Court decisions, include a short summary of the ruling and the procedural history of a case. The Reporter of Judicial Decisions prepares the headnotes, which are not part of the opinion. As such, the opinion alone should be relied upon for the reasoning behind the decision [Emphasis added].

Subscribe to a case law category (or categories) of your choice through our Email Digest or RSS delivery services to receive the latest cases from the Supreme or Appellate Courts delivered directly to your inbox.


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=528

AC38033 - Marra v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly dismissed his eighteen count petition, which alleged claims of ineffective assistance of counsel against his prior habeas attorneys, because the court improperly (1) relied on a decision of the prior habeas court deeming his withdrawal of that action as being ‘‘with prejudice’’ and (2) concluded that the deliberate bypass doctrine barred his action. We conclude that only the form of the habeas court’s judgment is improper and, accordingly, reverse the judgment on that limited ground.")


Habeas Law Appellate Court Opinions

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=493

AC38505 - Rogers v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; claim of ineffective assistance; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in concluding that (1) the state did not violate his right to due process when it withheld third-party culpability evidence from the petitioner in his criminal trial, and (2) he was not denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC37693 - Pires v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; claim of ineffective assistance; "He claims that the habeas court erred in failing to conclude that his trial lawyers provided ineffective assistance by failing to adequately convey to the trial court his desire to represent himself. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")


Habeas Appellate Court Opinion

   by Townsend, Karen

 http://www.jud.state.ct.us/lawlib/LawLibNews/Posts/Post.aspx?Id=485

AC38662- Bueno v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying petition for certification to appeal denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus; knowledge of immigration consequences; “At the outset, we note that two distinct issues are presented in this appeal. The first concerns the question of mootness; the second involves the merits of the petitioner’s due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims… We therefore conclude that the petitioner cannot demonstrate that his due process and ineffective assistance of counsel claims are debatable among jurists of reason, could be resolved in a different manner, or are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Simms v. Warden, supra, 230 Conn. 616. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.”)


1 2 3