The Connecticut Law Journal, Volume LXXIX, No. 22, for November 28, 2017 is now available.

Contained in this issue is the following:

• Table of Contents
• Volume 327: Orders (Pages 959 - 962)
• Volume 327: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Reports
• Volume 178: Connecticut Appellate Reports (Pages 258 - 372)
• Volume 178: Cumulative Table of Cases Connecticut Appellate Reports
• Miscellaneous Notices
• Notices of Connecticut State Agencies

• Posted in:
• Connecticut Law Journal,
• Recent Opinions

The 2017 edition of our research guide on Discovery (Financial) in Family Matters has been posted to our website. A new table of case decisions on dissipation of assets has been added.

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC38712 - GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Ford ("The self-represented defendant in this residential mortgage foreclosure action, Eric M. Ford, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion of the plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-10 (Wells Fargo), to open a judgment of strict foreclosure and to extend the law days, and denying the defendant's motion to open the judgment. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 790, 190 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2015), the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff's motion to open and denying his motion to open; and (2) the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Foreclosure Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38418 - Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Angel Meletrich, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal 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 abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in not finding that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to call the petitioner's aunt as an additional alibi witness during the petitioner's criminal trial. We disagree and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal.")

AC39286 - Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Luis Lebron, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (b). The petitioner claims on appeal that, in reaching its determination that no good cause existed to proceed to trial, the habeas court improperly concluded that he had waived many of his claims by entering a guilty plea in the underlying criminal action and relied in part on an affirmative defense that was not pleaded by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, in his return. We conclude that the habeas court properly dismissed counts one through four of the petition, but improperly dismissed the entirety of counts five and six. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.")

AC39467 - Carmon v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Adam Carmon, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, dismissing in part and denying in part, his fourth petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that (1) the state had violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), by withholding critical exculpatory evidence at the time of his criminal trial, (2) his criminal trial counsel, first habeas counsel, and second habeas counsel all had provided ineffective assistance, and (3) he was entitled to immediate release on the basis of actual innocence. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

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

AC37582 - State v. Davis (Accessory to murder; "This case returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court; see State v. Davis, 325 Conn. 918, 163 A.3d 618 (2017); with direction to consider the claim of plain error raised by the defendant, Paul Davis, in light of its decision in State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 155 A.3d 782 (2017). We now consider the defendant's appeal from the judgment of conviction of accessory to murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-8 (a), in which he claimed that the trial court committed plain error by improperly instructing the jury that it was not necessary for the state to prove that the defendant intended to kill the victim to find him guilty of accessory to murder.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38979 - State v. Fowler (Revocation of probation; "The defendant, Jamarr Fowler, appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and imposing a previously suspended three year prison sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) found a violation of probation on the basis of insufficient evidence; (2) determined that the Office of Probation had authority to include a probation condition that the defendant must submit to global positioning system (GPS) monitoring; and (3) denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC38916 - State v. Walker (Murder; "This case returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court; see State v. Walker, 325 Conn. 920, 163 A.3d 619 (2017); with direction to consider the claim of plain error raised by the defendant, Joseph Walker. In our previous opinion, we reversed the judgment only with respect to the defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. State v. Walker, 169 Conn. App. 794, 812, 153 A.3d 38 (2016), remanded for consideration, 325 Conn. 920, 163 A.3d 619 (2017).

We affirmed the judgment in all other respects. Id. As to the defendant's claim that the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury, sua sponte, on accomplice testimony, we concluded that '[b]ecause the defendant waived his right to raise the present claim of instructional error, he is foreclosed from seeking consideration under the plain error doctrine.' Id., 810–11.

Upon granting the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from our previous decision, the Supreme Court has now directed this court to consider the defendant's claim of plain error in light of State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 155 A.3d 209 (2017), which held that an implied waiver of a claim of instructional error pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), does not preclude an evaluation of that claim under the plain error doctrine. State v. McClain, supra, 815. After consideration of the defendant's claim, we conclude that plain error does not exist, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions