Edward B. v. Commissioner of Correction, 140 Conn. App. 253

Edward B. was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and two counts of risk of injury to a child; the conviction was upheld on direct appeal.
The petitioner filed a fourth amended habeas petition on February 19, 2010 asserting ineffective assistance of appellate counsel among other claims.
The habeas court denied the petition and later granted certification to appeal.
Petitioner claimed appellate counsel failed to adequately brief a cross-examination issue involving Florence Freudenthal and Leventhal’s testimony and challenged the admissibility of Leventhal’s testimony.
The court assumed a constitutional violation occurred and that the underlying claim on direct appeal had merit, but held the evidence was overwhelming and the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to affirmation of the petition.”

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deficient performance for not briefing cross-exam issue	Edward B. argues counsel failed to brief a viable cross-examination claim	Edward B.'s appellate counsel performance did not fall below ordinary competence	No deficient performance established; no prejudice
Harmlessness of Leventhal testimony	Admission of Leventhal testimony violated constitutional rights and could have changed the outcome	Admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no reasonable probability of reversal

Moody v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn. App. 293 (Conn. App. 2011) (test for ineffective assistance on collateral review requires reasonable probability of success)
Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2008) (harmless error standard for reviewing trial errors)
State v. Edward B., 72 Conn. App. 282 (Conn. App. 2002) (direct appeal context; evidence of penetration overwhelming)