Hall v. Commissioner of Correction

Connecticut Appellate Court

Hall v. Commissioner of Correction

982 A.2d 277, 118 Conn. App. 53, 2009 Conn. App. LEXIS 492

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 17, 2009

DocketAC 30213

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 982 A.2d 277 (Hall 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

Hall v. Commissioner of Correction, 982 A.2d 277, 118 Conn. App. 53, 2009 Conn. App. LEXIS 492 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Dave Anthony Hall, appeals following the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from that court’s judgment denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas coipus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly failed to conclude that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance.

Following our review of the record and briefs, and after considering the oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition because he has not shown that the issues involved in his appeal are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve them in a different manner or that the questions raised are adequate to 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); 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 petitioner, Dave Anthony Hall, appeals following the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from that court’s judgment denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas coipus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly failed to conclude that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance.

Following our review of the record and briefs, and after considering the oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition because he has not shown that the issues involved in his appeal are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve them in a different manner or that the questions raised are adequate to 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); Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

982 A.2d 277, 118 Conn. App. 53, 2009 Conn. App. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-commissioner-of-correction-connappct-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack