Frank v. Commissioner of Correction

Connecticut Appellate Court

Frank v. Commissioner of Correction

877 A.2d 884, 90 Conn. App. 326, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 311

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJuly 19, 2005

DocketAC 25295

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 877 A.2d 884 (Frank v. Commissioner of Correction) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Frank v. Commissioner of Correction, 877 A.2d 884, 90 Conn. App. 326, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The habeas court denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was filed by the petitioner, George Frank. The petitioner claimed that his trial counsel rendered ineffective legal assistance. The petitioner appeals following the court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

We have reviewed the issues raised by the petitioner in his amended petition as well as the court’s thorough resolution of those issues. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991). Having failed to satisfy any of those criteria, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal reflects an abuse of discretion. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The habeas court denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was filed by the petitioner, George Frank. The petitioner claimed that his trial counsel rendered ineffective legal assistance. The petitioner appeals following the court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal. We dismiss the appeal.

We have reviewed the issues raised by the petitioner in his amended petition as well as the court’s thorough resolution of those issues. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991). Having failed to satisfy any of those criteria, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal reflects an abuse of discretion. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

877 A.2d 884, 90 Conn. App. 326, 2005 Conn. App. LEXIS 311, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-v-commissioner-of-correction-connappct-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack