Blake v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn.App. 692

Petitioner Jeff Blake was convicted of sexual assault; relevant trial evidence included underwear with the petitioner’s DNA and testimony from the alleged victim. See State v. Blake.
Blake filed a third amended habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to pursue in-camera review of victim’s mental health records; inadequate cross‑examination re: whether the victim heard voices; and failure to argue underwear ownership/semen location).
At the habeas trial the court precluded Blake from questioning the victim about whether she heard voices at or near the time of the assault. Blake conceded that such testimony was necessary to prove two of his ineffectiveness claims.
The habeas court denied the habeas petition and then denied Blake’s petition for certification to appeal. Blake appealed the denial of certification.
The appellate court reviewed whether the habeas court abused its discretion under the Lozada/Simms standard (issues must be debatable among jurists, capable of different resolution, or deserve encouragement) and applied Strickland’s ineffective‑assistance framework.
The court dismissed the appeal: Blake failed to preserve/rely on the excluded‑questioning issue in his certification petition, and the habeas court reasonably found no deficient performance or prejudice on the remaining underwear/semen argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether habeas court abused discretion by precluding questioning the victim about hearing voices	Blake: testimony about voices was necessary to prove counsel was ineffective for failing to pursue mental‑health records and to cross‑examine about voices	Commissioner: issue was not raised in Blake’s petition for certification to appeal; thus not reviewable	Not reviewable on appeal — Blake did not raise the issue in his certification petition, so court could not review it
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to argue underwear belonged to victim’s mother or that semen placement contradicted victim’s account	Blake: counsel should have argued alternative ownership and semen placement to undermine state’s theory	Commissioner: counsel did argue semen location; no evidence presented at trial showed underwear belonged to mother; petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice	Denied — habeas court reasonably found no deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland; certification properly denied

Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (limits appellate review after denial of certification to abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (adopts Lozada factors for evaluating abuse of discretion in certification denial)
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (factors for assessing counsel‑related procedural issues on collateral review)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑prong standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Tutson v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 203 (2013) (applies Simms/Lozada standard in habeas certification context)
State v. Blake, 106 Conn. App. 345 (2008) (trial record and facts underlying petitioner’s conviction)