Jimenez v. Commissioner of Correction

Connecticut Appellate Court

Jimenez v. Commissioner of Correction

151 A.3d 853, 169 Conn. App. 703, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 455

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedDecember 13, 2016

DocketAC37860

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.3d 853 (Jimenez 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

Jimenez v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 A.3d 853, 169 Conn. App. 703, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 455 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Francisco Jimenez, appeals, following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He sets forth claims of constitutional violations because of the actions of trial counsel, and he claims deficient performance of trial counsel, appellate counsel, and first habeas counsel. The petitioner bases these claims on trial counsel's (1) allegedly discriminatory and improper statements during closing argument; (2) failure to pursue a motion to suppress a purportedly inculpatory statement by the petitioner; and (3) failure to call a witness. Following a trial, the habeas court denied the petitioner's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

After careful review of the record and the parties' appellate briefs, their oral arguments before this court, and the habeas court's thoughtful and well reasoned memorandum of decision, we conclude that the court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Harris v. Commissioner of Correction , 126 Conn.App. 453 , 458, 11 A.3d 730 , cert. denied, 300 Conn. 932 , 17 A.3d 69 (2011). There is no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Francisco Jimenez, appeals, following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He sets forth claims of constitutional violations because of the actions of trial counsel, and he claims deficient performance of trial counsel, appellate counsel, and first habeas counsel. The petitioner bases these claims on trial counsel's (1) allegedly discriminatory and improper statements during closing argument; (2) failure to pursue a motion to suppress a purportedly inculpatory statement by the petitioner; and (3) failure to call a witness. Following a trial, the habeas court denied the petitioner's second petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

After careful review of the record and the parties' appellate briefs, their oral arguments before this court, and the habeas court's thoughtful and well reasoned memorandum of decision, we conclude that the court properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Harris v. Commissioner of Correction , 126 Conn.App. 453 , 458, 11 A.3d 730 , cert. denied, 300 Conn. 932 , 17 A.3d 69 (2011). There is no error.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.3d 853, 169 Conn. App. 703, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimenez-v-commissioner-of-correction-connappct-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack