Elliston v. Commissioner of Correction, 131 Conn. App. 787

In 2002 a jury convicted Elliston of attempt to commit murder, assault in the first degree, and carrying a dangerous weapon, and he was sentenced to 25 years’ custody.
This Court previously upheld the trial court’s denial of suppression of out-of-court and in-court identifications, holding the identification reliable under the totality of the circumstances.
In his amended habeas petition, Elliston alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel, including deficient cross-examination, misapplication of identification law, and failure to file a memorandum of law in support of suppression.
The habeas court found no ineffectiveness regarding the memorandum of law and rejected claims about trial counsel’s cross-examination and other asserted deficiencies, with credibility-based determinations.
Elliston also alleged counsel failed to investigate an eyewitness identification and failed to present an alibi defense; the habeas court credited trial counsel’s strategic decisions and found no prejudice to Elliston.
The habeas court denied certification to appeal; it concluded the issues were not debatable among jurists of reason and therefore denied the petition for certification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal	Elliston argues issues are debatable among jurists of reason.	Respondent argues the issues are not debatable and certification was properly denied.	No abuse of discretion; certification denied
Whether Elliston received ineffective assistance of trial counsel warranting habeas relief	Trial counsel were ineffective in cross-examination, identification handling, and alibi strategy.	Habeas court rejected these claims as unproven or lacking prejudice; credibility involved.	No reversible error; no prejudice established

Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard for certiorari/jet)
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (defining standards for ineffective-assistance claims)
J.R. v. Commissioner of Correction, 105 Conn. App. 827 (2008) (reviewing habeas-claim standards and review of trial-counsel claims)
State v. Elliston, 86 Conn. App. 479 (2004) (reliability of identification and totality-of-circumstances test)
Atkinson v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 632 (2010) (cellphone discussion of ineffective-assistance standards)