Iovieno v. Commissioner of Corrections, No. Cv 86-236-S(iac) (Mar. 22, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Iovieno v. Commissioner of Corrections, No. Cv 86-236-S(iac) (Mar. 22, 1999)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3400

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 22, 1999

DocketNo. CV 86-236-S(IAC)

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3400 (Iovieno v. Commissioner of Corrections, No. Cv 86-236-S(iac) (Mar. 22, 1999)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Iovieno v. Commissioner of Corrections, No. Cv 86-236-S(iac) (Mar. 22, 1999), 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3400 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: PETITION OF CERTIFICATION In February, 1991, the petitioner's writ of Habeas Corpus was tried before the undersigned and dismissed. The Court's decision was filed February 22, 1991. Counsel filed a petition for certification to appeal on March 8, 1991, more than the ten days allowed pursuant to C.G.S. 52-470(b). After a hearing on the CT Page 3401 timeliness of the filing of the petition for certification, the Court denied Iovieno permission to appeal, holding that the statute prohibited discretion to allow more than ten days. The Court's ruling was sustained by our Supreme Court. Iovieno v.Commissioner of Correction, 222 Conn. 254 (1992).

Iovieno brought a new petition for writ of Habeas Corpus alleging ineffectiveness of Habeas counsel. That petition was denied, the trial court concluding that the second prong ofStrickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), requiring the petitioner to establish prejudice, had not been met.

The decision of the Habeas Court was appealed an ultimately overruled by our Supreme Court. Iovieno v. Commissioner ofCorrections, 242 Conn. 689 (1997). As a result of that opinion, the matter has been remanded to this court to consider the merits of Iovieno's petition for certification to appeal its decision denying Habeas relief in 1991.

Having reviewed the undersigned's Memorandum of Decision dated February 15, 1991, and the transcript of the Court's decision denying the Petition for Certification, this Court concludes that the Petition for Certification should be denied. The Court relies upon its conclusion that even if original trial counsel had filed a Motion to Suppress and even if he had been successful in suppressing certain evidence claimed to have been seized illegally, there was sufficient additional evidence for the trier of fact to conclude that he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further relies upon its conclusion that trial counsel's failure to call Sisson to the stand did not amount to representation which "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness."

By the Court

Scheinblum, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: PETITION OF CERTIFICATION In February, 1991, the petitioner's writ of Habeas Corpus was tried before the undersigned and dismissed. The Court's decision was filed February 22, 1991. Counsel filed a petition for certification to appeal on March 8, 1991, more than the ten days allowed pursuant to C.G.S. 52-470(b). After a hearing on the CT Page 3401 timeliness of the filing of the petition for certification, the Court denied Iovieno permission to appeal, holding that the statute prohibited discretion to allow more than ten days. The Court's ruling was sustained by our Supreme Court. Iovieno v.Commissioner of Correction, 222 Conn. 254 (1992).

Iovieno brought a new petition for writ of Habeas Corpus alleging ineffectiveness of Habeas counsel. That petition was denied, the trial court concluding that the second prong ofStrickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052,80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), requiring the petitioner to establish prejudice, had not been met.

The decision of the Habeas Court was appealed an ultimately overruled by our Supreme Court. Iovieno v. Commissioner ofCorrections, 242 Conn. 689 (1997). As a result of that opinion, the matter has been remanded to this court to consider the merits of Iovieno's petition for certification to appeal its decision denying Habeas relief in 1991.

Having reviewed the undersigned's Memorandum of Decision dated February 15, 1991, and the transcript of the Court's decision denying the Petition for Certification, this Court concludes that the Petition for Certification should be denied. The Court relies upon its conclusion that even if original trial counsel had filed a Motion to Suppress and even if he had been successful in suppressing certain evidence claimed to have been seized illegally, there was sufficient additional evidence for the trier of fact to conclude that he was proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court further relies upon its conclusion that trial counsel's failure to call Sisson to the stand did not amount to representation which "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness."

By the Court

Scheinblum, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 3400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/iovieno-v-commissioner-of-corrections-no-cv-86-236-siac-mar-22-connsuperct-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack