J'Veil Outing v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 11 June 2019 |
Docket Number | AC 41224 |
Citation | 211 A.3d 1053,190 Conn.App. 510 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | J'Veil OUTING v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
David R. Kritzman, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Joshua C. Shulman, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
James A. Killen, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were, Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and Adrienne Russo, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Lavine, Moll and Bishop, Js.
The petitioner, J'Veil Outing, appeals 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 erred in concluding that his trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance in failing (1) to properly investigate and present an alibi defense, (2) to properly investigate and rebut the testimony of the eyewitnesses to the murder at issue, and (3) to adequately preserve an issue regarding expert testimony on eyewitness identification. The petitioner also claims that the court erred in concluding that his appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the issue, on direct appeal, of the trial court's refusal to permit surrebuttal evidence. Finally, the petitioner claims that the court incorrectly determined that he had not met his burden of proof regarding his claim of actual innocence. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The record reveals that, after a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted on March 20, 2006, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. Thereafter, the petitioner was sentenced to fifty years of imprisonment. The petitioner's conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. State v. Outing , 298 Conn. 34, 86, 3 A.3d 1 (2010), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1225, 131 S. Ct. 1479, 179 L. Ed. 2d 316 (2011).1 In that appeal, our Supreme Court recited the following underlying facts that the jury reasonably could have found:
"Thereafter, the jury found the [petitioner] guilty of murder, and the trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the verdict, sentencing the [petitioner] to a term of imprisonment of fifty years." (Footnotes omitted.) Id., at 38–41, 3 A.3d 1.
After our Supreme Court affirmed his conviction, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus dated October 5, 2010. The matter was tried on the petitioner's fifth amended petition, dated February 26, 2015, in which he set forth claims of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, a due process claim regarding the presentation of evidence at trial, and a claim of actual innocence.2 The hearing on this matter before the habeas court, Oliver, J. , began on March 21, 2016, and continued intermittently for eight days, concluding on November 22, 2016. Following the receipt of posttrial briefs, the court issued its memorandum of decision on November 20, 2017, denying the petition.3 In denying the petition, the habeas court concluded that the petitioner had not met his burden of establishing either deficient performance or prejudice with respect to several of his ineffective assistance of trial counsel claims, including the claims that his trial counsel failed to properly investigate and to present an alibi defense, to investigate and to rebut the testimony of the state's eyewitnesses, and to preserve the record concerning the trial testimony of an expert witness on witness identifications. The court further concluded that the petitioner failed to sustain his burden of establishing deficient performance or prejudice with respect to his ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim, and that the petitioner failed to establish his actual innocence. The court deemed the remainder of the petitioner's ineffective assistance of trial and...
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Ramon A. G.
-
Antonio A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
......'s criminal trial by the exercise of due diligence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Outing v. Commissioner of Correction , 190 Conn. App. 510, 540, 211 A.3d 1053, cert. denied, 333 Conn. ......
-
Ross v. Comm'r of Corr.
......See, e.g., Outing v. Commissioner of Correction , 190 Conn. App. 510, 540, 211 A.3d 1053, cert. denied, 333 Conn. ......
-
Antonio A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
......'s criminal trial by the exercise of due diligence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Outing v. Commissioner of Correction , 190 Conn. App. 510, 540, 211 A.3d 1053, cert. denied, 333 Conn. ......