Harris v. Commissioner of Correction

H

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** SILAS HARRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 42165) Bright, C. J., and Alvord and Bellis, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who had been convicted of various crimes in connection with a riot at a correctional institution during which he assaulted a correctional officer, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel and his prior habeas counsel. Follow- ing a hearing, the habeas court dismissed, pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 23-29 (3)) governing successive petitions, the petitioner’s habeas petition with respect to his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel and denied the petition with respect to the claims of ineffective assistance of prior habeas counsel. Thereafter, the habeas court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner having failed to demonstrate that his claims involved issues that were debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions raised were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 2. The petitioner could not prevail on his claim that the habeas court improp- erly denied his habeas petition with respect to his claim of ineffective assistance of his appellate counsel; although, contrary to that court’s determination, the petitioner’s claim was not barred by the doctrine of successive petitions, the petitioner having sought different relief from that which he had sought in his first habeas petition, this court concluded that the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel failed, as the petitioner could not demonstrate that he suffered prejudice as a result of appellate counsel’s alleged deficient performance in failing to challenge on direct appeal the trial court’s denial of his motion to sever his trial from that of his codefendant, the …

Original document

Add comment

By

Recent Posts

Recent Comments