Ross v. Comm'r of Corr.

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Ross v. Comm'r of Corr.

204 A.3d 703, 331 Conn. 915

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedApril 3, 2019

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 A.3d 703 (Ross v. Comm'r of Corr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ross v. Comm'r of Corr., 204 A.3d 703, 331 Conn. 915 (Colo. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The petitioner Maurice Ross' petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 188 Conn.App. 251, 204 A.3d 792, is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the doctrine of collateral of estoppel precluded the petitioner from litigating the issue of whether defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's improper comments during the petitioner's criminal trial prejudiced him as part of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), because the Appellate Court had previously held in the petitioner's direct appeal from his criminal conviction that those same improper comments did not deprive him of a fair trial?

"2. If the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not preclude the petitioner from litigating the issue of prejudice, can the petitioner prevail under Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052?"

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

The petitioner Maurice Ross' petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 188 Conn.App. 251, 204 A.3d 792, is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly determine that the doctrine of collateral of estoppel precluded the petitioner from litigating the issue of whether defense counsel's failure to object to the prosecutor's improper comments during the petitioner's criminal trial prejudiced him as part of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), because the Appellate Court had previously held in the petitioner's direct appeal from his criminal conviction that those same improper comments did not deprive him of a fair trial?

"2. If the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not preclude the petitioner from litigating the issue of prejudice, can the petitioner prevail under Strickland v. Washington, supra, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052?"

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 A.3d 703, 331 Conn. 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-commr-of-corr-conn-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack