Sheets v. Warden, No. Cv-97-0569438 (Dec. 15, 1998)

Connecticut Superior Court

Sheets v. Warden, No. Cv-97-0569438 (Dec. 15, 1998)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15236

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 15, 1998

DocketNo. CV-97-0569438

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15236 (Sheets v. Warden, No. Cv-97-0569438 (Dec. 15, 1998)) 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

Sheets v. Warden, No. Cv-97-0569438 (Dec. 15, 1998), 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15236 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION The petitioner brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the criminal trial court (A) denied his motion to sever; (E) overruled his objection to the questioning of his alibi witness concerning evidence which was more prejudicial than probative; and (F) sustained the objection to the petitioner to rehabilitate said alibi witness as to her availability to the State. These three issues were appealed and the trial court was affirmed. The petitioner also alleges that the trial court erred in that (B) it denied the petitioner's motion to suppress identification; (C) it caused a failure to accurate investigation; and (D) it denied an in-court or other non-suggestive line-up. These three issues were not appealed but were appealable.

The respondent has moved to dismiss in that the issues raised herein are issues that have been appealed or should have been appealed. Habeas Corpus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal, a writ of error or to review irregularities or errors of procedure or questions as to the sufficiency of evidence.Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 628 (1956).

For the above reasons the motion to dismiss the petition is granted.

Thomas H. Corrigan Judge Trial Referee

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[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]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 The petitioner brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that the criminal trial court (A) denied his motion to sever; (E) overruled his objection to the questioning of his alibi witness concerning evidence which was more prejudicial than probative; and (F) sustained the objection to the petitioner to rehabilitate said alibi witness as to her availability to the State. These three issues were appealed and the trial court was affirmed. The petitioner also alleges that the trial court erred in that (B) it denied the petitioner's motion to suppress identification; (C) it caused a failure to accurate investigation; and (D) it denied an in-court or other non-suggestive line-up. These three issues were not appealed but were appealable.

The respondent has moved to dismiss in that the issues raised herein are issues that have been appealed or should have been appealed. Habeas Corpus cannot be utilized as a substitute for an appeal, a writ of error or to review irregularities or errors of procedure or questions as to the sufficiency of evidence.Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 628 (1956).

For the above reasons the motion to dismiss the petition is granted.

Thomas H. Corrigan Judge Trial Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 15236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheets-v-warden-no-cv-97-0569438-dec-15-1998-connsuperct-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack