Turner v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 08 May 2018 |
Docket Number | AC 39131 |
Citation | 187 A.3d 1163,181 Conn.App. 743 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Kurtis TURNER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
Vishal K. Garg, Wethersfield, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Stephen M. Carney, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Michael L. Regan, New London, state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Sheldon, Keller and Eveleigh, Js.
The petitioner, Kurtis Turner, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal 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 (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, and (2) improperly concluded that there were no violations of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed. 2d 215 (1963), at his underlying criminal trial.1 For the reasons set forth herein, we agree with the petitioner and conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and in denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the habeas court and remand the matter for a new trial.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. After a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a(a) and sentenced to sixty years incarceration. Our prior decision on the petitioner's direct appeal in State v. Turner , 133 Conn. App. 812, 37 A.3d 183, cert. denied, 304 Conn. 929, 42 A.3d 390 (2012), set forth the following facts:
Id., at 814–16, 37 A.3d 183. This court affirmed the petitioner's conviction on direct appeal. See id., at 814, 37 A.3d 183.
On March 1, 2013, the petitioner, in a self-represented capacity, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. On May 8, 2015, the petitioner, represented by appointed counsel, filed the amended petition operative in this appeal. In the amended petition, the petitioner alleged that (1) his constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel was violated, (2) his right to due process was violated by the prosecuting authority's knowing presentation of false testimony, and (3) his right to due process was violated by the prosecuting authority's failure to disclose material exculpatory evidence.2 The habeas trial was held over three days from September 28, 2015 to September 30, 2015. The petitioner presented the testimony of, inter alia, Raul Davila–Carlos, the petitioner's trial counsel, and John P. Gravelec–Pannone, the prosecuting attorney in the petitioner's case. Following the trial, the habeas court, Sferrazza, J. , denied the petition in a written decision in which it concluded that the petitioner had not met his burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel or a violation of his due process rights. Thereafter, the habeas court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and this appeal followed. Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus with respect to his claim of due process violations. We agree.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Sanders v. Commissioner of Correction , 169 Conn. App. 813, 821–22, 153 A.3d 8 (2016), cert. denied, 325 Conn. 904, 156 A.3d 536 (2017).
As discussed in part II of this opinion, because the resolution of the petitioner's underlying claim involves issues that are debatable among jurists of reason and could have been resolved by a court in a different manner, we conclude that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal from the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
The petitioner claims that his due process rights were violated by the prosecuting attorney's knowing presentation of false or misleading testimony and failure to disclose material impeachment evidence as required by Brady v. Maryland , supra, 373 U.S. at 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Specifically, the petitioner argues that (1) Gravelec–Pannone failed to correct the false testimony of Alice Philips, a cooperating witness for the prosecution, that she had not received consideration in exchange for her testimony; and (2) the prosecution failed to disclose the material exculpatory evidence that the state had provided consideration in exchange for the testimony of Philips, who was a friend of the victim and testified on behalf of the state about the dispute among the petitioner, McGill and the victim.
The following additional facts are relevant to this issue. In her initial statement to the police, Philips told them that McGill was the individual who said that somebody was going to be dead within...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Donald v. Comm'r of Corr.
...by the prosecutor for the imposition of a particular sentence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Turner v. Commissioner of Correction , 181 Conn. App. 743, 759, 187 A.3d 1163 (2018). This is precisely the kind of deal that Harris had with the state, and the record reveals that, contrary ......
- Mendillo v. Tinley, Renehan & Dost, LLP
-
Reyes v. State
... ... (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Turner v ... Commissioner of Correction, ... 181 Conn.App. 743, 759, 187 A.3d 1163 (2018) ... ...
-
Bova v. Commissioner of Correction
... ... liberty may depend." Turner v. Commissioner of ... Correction, 181 Conn.App. 743, 753, 187 A.3d 1163 ... (2018) ... ...
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...[301] 330 Conn. 575, 198 A.3d 562 (2019). [302] Id. at 594 (Internal citation marks and quotations omitted). [303] Id. at 610. [304] 181 Conn. App. 743, 187 A.3d 1163 (2018). [305] Id. at 759 (quoting Hines v. Commissioner, 164 Conn. App. 712, 725, 138 A.3d 430 (2016)). [306] 183 Conn. App.......