White v. Commissioner of Correction

Connecticut Appellate Court

White v. Commissioner of Correction

752 A.2d 1159, 58 Conn. App. 169, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 241

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedJune 6, 2000

DocketAC 19117

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 752 A.2d 1159 (White 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

White v. Commissioner of Correction, 752 A.2d 1159, 58 Conn. App. 169, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 241 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Wayne White, appeals following the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from that court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the habeas court improperly determined that his trial counsel provided effective assistance.¹ In his amended [170]*170petition, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to explain the amount of time the petitioner was likely to serve and his eligibility for parole when trial counsel conveyed plea bargain offers by the state. The habeas court denied the petition and denied the petitioner’s request for certification to appeal. Our examination of the record and briefs persuades us that the denial of the petition for certification was proper and the appeal should be dismissed.

In a habeas appeal, although this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is plenary. Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 36 Conn. App. 695, 700, 652 A.2d 1050, cert. denied, 233 Conn. 912, 659 A.2d 183 (1995). For the petitioner to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must establish both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's mistakes, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); Bunkley v. Commissioner of Correction, 222 Conn. 444, 445, 610 A.2d 598 (1992). The petitioner has not satisfied this burden.

The habeas court’s dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was based on a review of the petitioner’s claims and its findings that “the petitioner was aware that the robbery charge did fall within the 85 percent requirement of General Statutes § 54-125a (c) for parole and that the seven years to serve was never offered. Therefore, neither could have influenced his decision differently to have taken a plea rather than to finish trial.” Accordingly, the habeas court concluded that the petitioner had failed to carry the burden of [171]*171proof required to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

After a review of the record and briefs, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a state or federal constitutional right and, further, has failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the denial of certification to appeal was a clear abuse of discretion or that an injustice has been done. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994); Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 189, 640 A.2d 601 (1994); Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 38 Conn. App. 99,659 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 100 (1995); see also Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991).

We conclude that the habeas court had before it sufficient evidence to find as it did and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.

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, Wayne White, appeals following the habeas court’s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from that court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claims that the habeas court improperly determined that his trial counsel provided effective assistance.¹ In his amended [170]*170petition, the petitioner claims that his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to explain the amount of time the petitioner was likely to serve and his eligibility for parole when trial counsel conveyed plea bargain offers by the state. The habeas court denied the petition and denied the petitioner’s request for certification to appeal. Our examination of the record and briefs persuades us that the denial of the petition for certification was proper and the appeal should be dismissed.

In a habeas appeal, although this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous, our review of whether the facts as found by the habeas court constituted a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel is plenary. Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 36 Conn. App. 695, 700, 652 A.2d 1050, cert. denied, 233 Conn. 912, 659 A.2d 183 (1995). For the petitioner to prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, he must establish both that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the counsel's mistakes, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); Bunkley v. Commissioner of Correction, 222 Conn. 444, 445, 610 A.2d 598 (1992). The petitioner has not satisfied this burden.

The habeas court’s dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was based on a review of the petitioner’s claims and its findings that “the petitioner was aware that the robbery charge did fall within the 85 percent requirement of General Statutes § 54-125a (c) for parole and that the seven years to serve was never offered. Therefore, neither could have influenced his decision differently to have taken a plea rather than to finish trial.” Accordingly, the habeas court concluded that the petitioner had failed to carry the burden of [171]*171proof required to establish that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

After a review of the record and briefs, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a state or federal constitutional right and, further, has failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the denial of certification to appeal was a clear abuse of discretion or that an injustice has been done. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994); Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 189, 640 A.2d 601 (1994); Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 38 Conn. App. 99,659 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 100 (1995); see also Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991).

We conclude that the habeas court had before it sufficient evidence to find as it did and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

752 A.2d 1159, 58 Conn. App. 169, 2000 Conn. App. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-commissioner-of-correction-connappct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack