Harris v. Comm'r of Correction, 30989.
Decision Date | 08 February 2011 |
Docket Number | No. 30989.,30989. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Leroy HARRIS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
David J. Reich, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
Toni M. Smith-Rosario, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, John Waddock, supervisory assistant state's attorney, and Linda N. Howe, former senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
GRUENDEL, ROBINSON and PELLEGRINO, Js.
The petitioner, Leroy Harris, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court, Nazzaro, J., denying his fourth petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that his trial and first and second habeas counsel provided effective assistance. We reject the petitioner's claim and affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The procedural history and facts underlying the petitioner's conviction and prior habeas petitions were set out at length in Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 108 Conn.App. 201, 203-204, 947 A.2d 435, cert. denied, 288 Conn. 911, 953 A.2d 652 (2008). "The petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial, of three counts of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-134 (a) and 53a-8, and one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a). The petitioner was sentenced to a total effective term of eighty years incarceration. State v. Harris, 22 Conn.App. 329, 330, 577 A.2d 1077 (1990).
Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 108 Conn.App. at 203-204, 947 A.2d 435.
In his fourth petition, filed in 2005, in which he was represented by Reich, the petitioner raised severalclaims challenging the effectiveness of the representation provided by his habeas counsel during his first and second petitions. The petitioner also alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present properly his claims as to misidentification and prosecutorial impropriety. Again, the respondent moved to dismiss the petition because it presented the same grounds as prior petitions. The fourth habeas court, Fuger, J., dismissed the petition on the ground that it was a successive petition and an abuse of the writ and denied the petitioner's requested certification to appeal. This court reversed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Id., at 211, 947 A.2d 435.
On remand, the court, Nazzaro, J., held an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's habeas petition. The petitioner alleged ineffective assistance of (1) trial counsel in failing to discover an exculpatory police report that demonstrated that the petitioner was misidentified, (2) first habeas counsel in failing to address trial counsel's ineffectiveness as to that misidentification issue and (3) second habeas counsel for failing to present evidence to support the petitioner's claims of prosecutorial misconduct and actual innocence. On April 2, 2009, the court issued a memorandum of decision denying the petition, and, on April 6, 2009, the court granted the petition for certification to appeal. This appeal followed.
Initially, we set forth the appropriate standard of review for a challenge to the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when certification to appeal is granted. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Smith v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn.App. 637, 641, 999 A.2d 840 (2010).
In the petitioner's present appeal, the habeas court determined that he failed to satisfy either prong of the two-pronged test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Turner v. Commissioner of Correction, 118 Conn.App. 565, 568, 984 A.2d 793 (2009), cert. denied, 296 Conn. 901, 991 A.2d 1104 (2010).
The petitioner also claims that counsel in his first and second habeas proceedings rendered ineffective assistance. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Martin v. Comm'r of Corr.
...habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Commissioner of Correction , 126 Conn. App. 453, 456–57, 11 A.3d 730, cert. denied, 300 Conn. 932, 17 A.3d 69 (2011).IThe petitioner first claims that the habeas court erred in r......
-
Zollo v. Warden, State Prison
...corpus relief against other prior attorneys in the entire chain of representation is not a bar to this newest, albeit repetitive, claim. Id., 459 n.1 (Appellate Court in appeal from habeas court's denial fourth habeas corpus petition noting petitioner in the future not barred from bringing ......
-
Maldonado v. Comm'r of Corr.
...was ineffective and (2) that his trial counsel was ineffective.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn.App. 453, 457, 11 A.3d 730, cert. denied, 300 Conn. 932, 17 A.3d 69 (2011). This standard holds a petitioner to a higher standard when claiming......
-
Rhoderick Boyd v. Comm'r of Correction.
...The claim will succeed only if both prongs are satisfied.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn.App. 453, 457, 11 A.3d 730, cert. denied, 300 Conn. 932, 17 A.3d 69 (2011). “Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the convi......