Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction
Decision Date | 12 July 2005 |
Docket Number | (AC 24654). |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | JOHN VIVO III v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Richard W. Callahan, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Gerald E. Bodell, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
C. Robert Satti, Jr., senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
The petitioner, John Vivo III, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying in part his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, he claims that (1) the court improperly concluded that he received effective assistance of counsel and (2) his sentence under General Statutes § 53-202k should be vacated. We affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the habeas court.
As noted by the court, the basic facts of this case are not in dispute.
The petitioner was convicted by a jury of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 and commission of a class A and class B felony with a firearm in violation of § 53-202k. The petitioner was sentenced to sixty years incarceration for murder, ten years for assault in the first degree and five years for commission of a class A and class B felony with a firearm. The trial court ordered the sentences to run consecutively for a total effective term of seventy-five years. The petitioner appealed from his conviction, which our Supreme Court affirmed in State v. Vivo, 241 Conn. 665, 697 A.2d 1130 (1997). Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting claims of ineffective assistance of both his trial and appellate counsel.1 The habeas court denied the petition. The court subsequently granted his petition for certification to appeal, and this appeal followed.
The petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he received effective assistance of counsel both at his trial and on appeal. We disagree.
The petitioner first argues that the court improperly found that he received effective assistance from his trial counsel. In his posttrial memorandum of law in support of his petition, the petitioner stated in regard to that claim: "The petitioner acknowledges that the evidence adduced at trial is not sufficient to sustain a verdict in his favor, and abandons the claim." The court acknowledged that statement in its memorandum of decision. We agree with the court that the petitioner expressly abandoned that claim and decline to afford it review. See State v. Johnson, 82 Conn. App. 777, 794 n.12, 848 A.2d 526 (2004).
The petitioner also claims that the court improperly found that he received effective assistance from his appellate counsel. He contends that his appellate counsel was ineffective, that counsel's representation fell below the required standard of reasonable competence in that counsel failed to brief a state constitutional claim regarding the suppression of evidence and that the petitioner was prejudiced by that failure. We disagree.
Before considering the petitioner's specific claims, we first address the applicable standard of review. "In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 671, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), the United States Supreme Court articulated a two part analysis for evaluating constitutional claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. First, the [petitioner] must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed the [petitioner] by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the [petitioner] must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the [petitioner] of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Id., 687. Our Supreme Court has adopted that two part analysis in reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Bunkley v. Commissioner of Correction, 222 Conn. 444, 455, 610 A.2d 598 (1992); Sekou v. Warden, 216 Conn. 678, 690, 583 A.2d 1277 (1990); Valeriano v. Bronson, 209 Conn. 75, 83-84, 546 A.2d 1380 (1988).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 87 Conn. App. 560, 562-65, 867 A.2d 51, cert. denied, 273 Conn. 934, A.2d (2005). With that standard in mind, we turn to the petitioner's claim.
The petitioner asserts that his appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to include a state constitutional claim in his brief, in addition to the federal constitutional claim raised on appeal. This issue arises out of an incident that occurred when members of the Bridgeport police department, along with the petitioner's father, went to the petitioner's apartment to arrest him. After handcuffing the petitioner, the residence was searched to discern whether any of the other persons involved were within the apartment. The petitioner alleges that this was an illegal search used as a fishing expedition to obtain information to gain a subsequent search warrant and that nineteen nine millimeter bullets discovered during this subsequent search were used as evidence against him at trial. In denying the petitioner's motion to suppress this evidence, the trial court found that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santaniello v. Warden
... ... Court's decisions in Luurtsema v. Commissioner of ... Correction, 299 Conn. 740, 12 A.3d 817 (2011) and ... State v. Salamon, 287 ... Bronson, 209 ... Conn. 75, 87, 546 A.2d 1380 (1988). See also, Vivo v ... Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn.App. 167, 172, 876 ... A.2d 1216, cert ... ...
-
Tutson v. Comm'r of Corr.
...standard of reasonableness considering all of the circumstances.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn.App. 167, 171, 876 A.2d 1216, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 925, 883 A.2d 1253 (2005). To satisfy the prejudice prong, the petitioner must demonstrate ......
-
Carter v. Warden, No. CV 04 4000182 (Conn. Super. 5/4/2006), CV 04 4000182
...[216 Conn. 678, 690, 583 A.2d 1277 (1990)]." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn.App. 167, 171-72, 876 A.2d 1216 (2005). "The seminal case of Bunkley v. Commissioner of Correction, [222 Conn. 444, 610 A.2d 598 (1992)], considere......
-
Cerilli v. Warden, CV134005108S
... ... 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)." ... (Citations omitted.) Small v. Commissioner of ... Correction , 286 Conn. 707, 712, 946 A.2d 1203, cert ... denied, 555 U.S. 975, ... Bronson , 209 Conn. 75, 87, 546 A.2d 1380 (1988). See ... also, Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction , 90 ... Conn.App. 167, 172, 876 A.2d 1216, cert. denied, 275 ... ...