132 Conn. App. 57
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Braham, a self-represented petitioner, sought habeas relief after a prior conviction and Alford plea for murder.
- In 1996 in Hartford, Braham shot and killed Jeffrey Murphy following an argument at a cookout.
- Braham testified that he was angry and believed the victim threatened him; he fired in the direction of the victim.
- The victim’s cousin Troy Murphy witnessed the shooting; gunpowder on Braham’s shirt was found by police.
- Braham pled guilty to murder in 1998 under an Alford plea; he was sentenced to 32 years by the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether cross-examination restrictions improper | Braham argues Melchiorre's cross-examination was improperly limited. | Court held the issue unpreserved for review; no automatic review of unpreserved claims. | No review of the cross-examination issue; unpreserved claim. |
| Effective assistance of prior habeas counsel | Braham contends prior habeas trial and appellate counsel were ineffective. | Habeas court carefully considered and resolved the issues; no merit to ineffectiveness claims. | Habeas court properly denied the petition; ineffective assistance claims rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Messam, 108 Conn. App. 744 (2008) (unpreserved evidentiary claims generally not reviewed)
- Golding v. Stapleton, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (Golding review for constitutional claims when unpreserved)
- Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 240 (2010) (Golding analysis not undertaken where not requested)
- Braham v. Commissioner of Correction, 72 Conn. App. 1 (2002) (plea knowing, voluntary and intelligent; prior habeas counsel conduct discussed)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (recognizes Alford plea validity and related standards)