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.
SC20221 - Langston v.
Commissioner of Correction ("In December, 2014, the petitioner, Richard Langston, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, later amended in 2016, which was the most recent in a series of state and federal habeas corpus petitions challenging his 1999 conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of numerous offenses, including robbery in the first degree. Following a hearing on a request for an order to show cause filed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, the habeas court rendered judgment dismissing that petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to show good cause for his untimely filing pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and granted the petitioner certification to appeal to the Appellate Court. The petitioner now appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court dismissing the petition. Langston v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 528, 197 A.3d 1034 (2018). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition because, in filing it late, he had relied on the advice of an attorney who had represented him in connection with an earlier habeas petition filed in 2012 and who had advised him to withdraw that validly filed petition while a motion to dismiss was pending and to file the present one in its place, even though it would be subject to a statutory presumption of delay.")
AC41947 - Ruiz v. Commissioner of Correction (Charge of sexual assault in the first degree and fourth degree; risk of injury to child; “On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his right to effective assistance of counsel was not violated by the performance of his trial counsel in challenging the reliability of the state’s witness at a pretrial hearing on the state’s motion in limine seeking permission to videotape the testimony of the child victim, N, in the petitioner’s absence pursuant to State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1061, 108 S. Ct. 1017, 98 L. Ed. 2d 982 (1988). We affirm the judgment of the habeas court”).
SC20124 - Jobe v. Commissioner of Correction (Detention in federal immigration facility; whether Appellate court correctly determined that habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; “On appeal, the petitioner contends that the Appellate Court
(1) improperly declined to review his response, contained in his reply brief,
to the alternative ground for affirmance advanced by the respondent, the
Commissioner of Correction, and (2) incorrectly concluded that his federal
immigration detention did not satisfy the ‘custody’ requirement of General Statutes
§ 52-466 (a), as amended in 2006. See Public Acts 2006, No. 06-152, § 5 (P.A.
06-152). We agree with the petitioner’s first claim but disagree with his
second claim and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court”).
AC41763 - Ervin v. Commissioner of Correction (
“In this certified appeal from the habeas court’s denial of
his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner, Michael
Ervin, claims that the court erred in rejecting his claim that his trial counsel
rendered ineffective assistance to him in his criminal trial for the murder of
his wife (victim) (1) by failing to call a defense pathologist to rebut the testimony
of the state’s chief medical examiner, Harold Wayne Carver, as to the cause of
the victim’s death and/or (2) by presenting an inadequate argument in support
of his motion for a judgment of acquittal. We affirm the judgment of the habeas
court”).
AC41647 - Lenti v. Commissioner of Correction
(“On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1)
improperly concluded that he had failed to establish that his plea was not made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, and (2) abused its discretion in
denying his petition for certification to appeal from the court’s determination
that he had received the effective assistance of counsel. Both of these claims
rest on the petitioner’s assertion that he was impaired at the time of his plea
by the ingestion of medications prescribed by Department of Correction
personnel. We disagree with this assertion and the petitioner’s claims and,
accordingly, dismiss the appeal”).
AC41765 - Bagalloo v. Commissioner of Correction (“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 alleged, inter alia, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance when the petitioner entered into a plea agreement. 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”).