Coltherst v. Commissioner of Correction
Decision Date | 19 November 2019 |
Docket Number | CV154007268S |
Parties | Jamaal Coltherst v. Commissioner of Correction |
Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Bhatt, Tejas, J.
The petitioner was convicted, after two separate jury trials in two different jurisdictions, of numerous offenses. He is currently serving a total effective sentence of 185 years’ incarceration. He challenges the legality of his convictions alleging that trial counsel in each case rendered ineffective assistance during the plea bargaining and trial stages.
For the reasons set forth below, the petition is DENIED.
In Docket Number HHD-CR99-0170354 in the Judicial District of Hartford, Jamaal Coltherst was convicted of capital felony in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-54b(5) and 53a-8(a) murder in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-54a(a) and 53a-8(a), felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-92(a)(2)(B) and 53a-8(a), robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(2), robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-18 and 53a-135(a)(1), larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-119 53a-122(a)(3) and 53a-8(a), conspiracy to commit kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-48(a) and 53a-92(a)(2)(B), and larceny in the fourth degree in violation of § 53a-119 and General Statutes § 53a-125(a). After filing a motion to correct pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22 for reasons unrelated to the instant proceeding, the petitioner was sentenced to a total effective sentence of eighty years’ imprisonment. He appealed his convictions to our Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgments below. The facts as set out by our Supreme Court in that opinion are as follows:
(Footnote omitted.) State v. Coltherst, 263 Conn 478, 483-87, 820 A.2d 1024 (2003). On appeal, he claimed "that the trial court improperly (1) instructed the jury that it could convict him of murder under the doctrine set forth in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946) (Pinkerton doctrine); (2) instructed the jury that it could convict him of capital felony under the Pinkerton doctrine; (3) instructed the jury concerning certain evidence pertaining to consciousness of guilt; (4) allowed the state to cross-examine him with respect to subsequent misconduct; (5) refused to admit a coconspirator’s statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial