Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 14339
Decision Date | 11 August 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 14339,14339 |
Citation | 223 Conn. 411,611 A.2d 413 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | Gregory WALKER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Berdon, J., dissented and filed an opinion.
James Moreno, for plaintiff in error.
Julia DiCocco Dewey, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., and C. Robert Satti, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., for defendant in error.
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, COVELLO, BORDEN and BERDON, JJ.
The plaintiff in error (petitioner), Gregory Walker, brings a writ of error from the denial by the habeas court of a grant of certification to appeal 1 its decision dismissing the petitioner's writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. We affirm.
The habeas court's memorandum of decision establishes the following facts. After a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a(a). 2 The petitioner appealed to this court and we affirmed his conviction. State v. Walker, 206 Conn. 300, 537 A.2d 1021 (1988).
The petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his incarceration was illegal because he had been denied his right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that his appellate counsel had been ineffective because he had failed to challenge on appeal the trial court's instruction on circumstantial evidence.
In its memorandum of decision, the habeas court dismissed the writ because the petitioner had failed to establish the two requirements of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, reh. denied, 467 U.S. 1267, 104 S.Ct. 3562, 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984). The habeas court concluded that the petitioner had not met his burden of demonstrating that, by failing to challenge the instruction, his appellate counsel's performance fell below accepted standards of attorney competency, and that the appeal would have been successful if the issue had been raised. The petitioner timely filed a petition for certification to appeal the habeas court's decision. The habeas court denied the petition for certification. The petitioner then brought this writ of error. 3
We disagree with the petitioner's claim that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying certification to appeal. A habeas court's denial of certification to appeal is reversible only if the court's decision is so unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of discretion. See State v. Bergin, 214 Conn. 657, 660, 574 A.2d 164 (1990) ( ); State v. Avcollie, 174 Conn. 100, 110, 384 A.2d 315 (1977) (same). "In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling ... [and] [r]eversal is required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holmquist, 173 Conn. 140, 152, 376 A.2d 1111, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 306, 54 L.Ed.2d 193 (1977).
The petitioner claimed during the habeas corpus proceedings that he had been denied his right to effective assistance of appellate counsel. Specifically, he claimed that his appellate counsel's failure to appeal the issue of whether the trial court erroneously diluted the state's burden of proof by its instruction on circumstantial evidence deprived him of effective assistance of appellate counsel. 4 The habeas court, however, viewing the allegedly erroneous instruction in light of the entire charge, concluded that it was not likely that the jury was misled as to the state's ultimate burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the charged offense. Thus, the petitioner claims in his writ of error that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying certification to appeal because it failed to evaluate the allegedly erroneous instruction in isolation from the remainder of the charge in order to determine whether the instruction, in fact, diluted the state's burden of proof.
After the parties had filed their briefs in the present case, but before oral argument, we decided Bunkley v. Commissioner of Correction, 222 Conn. 444, 610 A.2d 598 (1992). In Bunkley, we held that, when evaluating an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim in a habeas proceeding, the proper inquiry is to consider the allegedly improper instruction, not in isolation from the remainder of the charge, but with reference to the entire charge and the totality of the evidence before the jury. 5
In light of Bunkley, the habeas court's conclusion that the allegedly improper charge must be examined in the context of the entire charge was correct. Consequently, the petitioner's claim that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal is without merit.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN and COVELLO, JJ., concurred.
I am concerned with the majority's footnote 3, which states that the petitioner's writ of error raises "significant questions as to the subject matter jurisdiction of this court." If the majority is really serious about our not having subject matter jurisdiction in this case, then we must address this issue first. A (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carey, 222 Conn. 299, 305, 610 A.2d 1147 (1992).
How, then, can the majority profess to be concerned about the "troubling" subject matter jurisdiction questions presented in this writ, and then quickly sweep them away in a footnote? "[W]henever a court discovers that it has no [subject matter] jurisdiction, it is bound to dismiss the case...." (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) Concerned Citizens of Sterling v. Sterling, 204 Conn. 551, 557, 529 A.2d 666 (1987); see also Practice Book § 145 (). Under the circumstances, if the majority believes that the issue of this court's jurisdiction raises "novel and difficult questions," then we should order rebriefing and reargument on that issue.
As for the merits, a principal issue in this case was the intent of the petitioner, as evidenced by the trial court's instruction to the jury that the The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of appellate counsel because that counsel failed to challenge in the appeal the following trial court instruction: "It is your right to draw inferences if you conclude that the facts that you find proven, reasonably establish other facts by reason and logic and are not a result of speculation, surmise or guesswork." In State v. Rodgers, 198 Conn. 53, 57, 502 A.2d 360 (1985), the trial court, while instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence, stated that an inference may be drawn if " 'it is more probable that the fact to be inferred is true.' " We reversed the defendant's conviction because that instruction, which is virtually identical to the one at issue in this writ of error, impermissibly diluted the state's burden of proof. In reversing the conviction in Rodgers, Bunkley v. Commissioner, 222 Conn. 444, 468, 610 A.2d 598 (1992) (Berdon, J., dissenting).
Since I believe that the correct focus should be on whether the result of the appeal would be different when determining prejudice for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; id. 222 Conn. at 466-67, 610 A.2d at 609-610; I would find that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's certificate to appeal and I would grant the writ of error. Accordingly, I dissent.
1 General Statutes § 52-470(b) provides: "No appeal from the judgment rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding brought in order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Davis
...required only where an abuse of discretion is manifest or where injustice appears to have been done.' " Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. 411, 414-15, 611 A.2d 413 (1992); see also United States v. Parker, 952 F.2d 31, 33 (2d Cir.1991) ("district court's decision revoking prob......
-
Carpenter v. Meachum
...judge of the Appellate Court refused a petitioner's request for certification to appeal.5 The court in Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. 411, 413 n. 3, 611 A.2d 413 (1992), raised the issue of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte in a footnote but did not decide it because t......
-
Simms v. Warden
...that a writ of error to review such a denial would require the showing of an abuse of discretion; Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. 411, 414, 611 A.2d 413 (1992); we relied on case law under General Statutes § 54-96, which authorizes a trial court to permit the state to appeal......
- State v. Aparo
-
1992 Connecticut Appellate Review
...dissent shows how much of Clark's reasoning would be outrageous today. This may account for the majority's narrow reliance on Clark. 15. 223 Conn. 411, 416, 611 A.2d 413 (1992). 16. 221 Conn. 356,370,603 A.2d 1160 (1992). 17. Supra,note 2. 18. 222 Conn. 331 354,610 A.2d 1162 (1992). 19. 222......
-
Developments in Connecticut Criminal Law: 1991-1992
...552-56, 613 A.2d 770 (1992); State v. Paulino, 223 Conn. 461, 480-84, 613 A.2d 720 (1992); Walker v. Commissioner 223 Conn 411, 416-19, 611 A.2d 413 (1992); Waller, 223 Conn. at 293-99; State v. Rodriguez, E~ Conn. 127, 148-52, 611 A.2d 211 1992); Wilson v. Cohen, 222 Conn. 591, 60547, 610 ......
-
Human Rights Commentator
...222 Conn. 254,25960 (1992); Commissioner of Correction v. Rodriguez, 222 Conn. 469 (1992); Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. 411, 413-14, n.3 (1992). Mr. Simms took a direct appeal from denial of his timely request for certification, which appeal was denied on the grounds that......