Peeler v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 37382
Citation | 155 A.3d 772,170 Conn.App. 654 |
Decision Date | 14 February 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 37382 |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Parties | Russell PEELER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
Lisa J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, Craig P. Nowak, senior assistant state's attorney, and Richard K. Greenalch, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Alvord, Prescott and Mihalakos, Js.
The petitioner, Russell Peeler, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erroneously (1) deprived him of his right to self-representation; (2) concluded that his claim that his expeditious criminal trial schedule violated his constitutional rights had been procedurally defaulted; (3) concluded that appellate counsel provided effective assistance; and (4) concluded that the state did not suppress evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).2 We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The following factual and procedural history, as set forth in State v. Peeler , 271 Conn. 338, 348–55, 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845, 126 S.Ct. 94, 163 L.Ed.2d 110 (2005) (Peeler II ), is relevant to the present appeal. "In the late 1990s, the [petitioner] and his brother, Adrian Peeler (Adrian), operated a large-scale drug trafficking network that sold crack cocaine (crack) throughout the city of Bridgeport. In 1997, the [petitioner] partnered with Rudolph Snead, Jr., to produce and distribute the crack. Snead's responsibilities included providing the [petitioner] with powdered cocaine, which the [petitioner], with the help of several associates, processed into crack and then sold on the streets. The partnership began to sour when, in 1997, the [petitioner] accused Snead of overcharging him for the powdered cocaine. Snead responded to the accusation by ‘shooting up’ a building on Benham Street in Bridgeport that the [petitioner] used as a ‘crack house.’ According to one of the [petitioner's] associates, the [petitioner] vowed to retaliate.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Little v. Comm'r of Corr.
...would amount to an ambuscade of the [habeas] judge." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Peeler v. Commissioner of Correction, 170 Conn.App. 654, 677, 155 A.3d 772, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 901, 157 A.3d 1146 (2017). In his second habeas petition and before the habeas court......
-
State v. Simmons
...that a Brady violation has not occurred." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Peeler v. Commissioner of Correction , 170 Conn. App. 654, 687–88, 155 A.3d 772, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 901, 157 A.3d 1146 (2017). Moreover, "[w]hether the [defendant] was deprived of his due p......
-
State v. Harris
...test, then we must conclude that a Brady violation has not occurred." (Internal quotation marks omitted). Peeler v. Commissioner of Correction , 170 Conn. App. 654, 688, 155 A.3d 772, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 901, 157 A.3d 1146 (2017). It is important to note, however, that "[n]ot every fail......
-
State v. Rogers
...upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant's claim." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Peeler v. Commissioner of Correction , 170 Conn. App. 654, 677, 155 A.3d 772, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 901, 157 A.3d 1146 (2017).The defendant relies on our Supreme Court's decision in Stat......