131 Conn. App. 820
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Greene appeals habeas court’s denial of certification to appeal from judgment denying amended habeas petition.
- Greene alleged Falk provided ineffective assistance during plea negotiations, including failing to advise acceptance of initial plea offer and allowing an open plea.
- Greene sought vacatur of sentence or remand for a new trial.
- Habeas court denied certification to appeal and found no proof of Falk’s ineffective assistance on the asserted grounds.
- Court noted Greene did not raise the specific ineffective-assistance claim in the habeas petition and was barred from raising it on appeal.
- During oral argument, counsel indicated the only related allegation was that Falk led Greene to believe the sentence would not exceed ten years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the habeas court abuse its discretion in denying certification to appeal? | Greene argues Falk’s ineffectiveness and the erroneous denial should be reviewed. | Court properly denied certification due to lack of debatable issues. | No abuse; certification denied. |
| Was the asserted ineffective-assistance claim about Falk failing to advise acceptance of the initial plea properly raised? | Greene asserted Falk’s failure to push the initial plea offer amounts to ineffective assistance. | Petition does not contain such a claim; it is not raised. | Not raised in petition; barred on appeal. |
| Did the petitioner's pleadings bar review of new issues under the pleadings-rule principles? | Greene should be able to raise all claims related to counsel and plea strategy. | Rules bar consideration of unraised issues not properly pled. | Petitioner barred from raising unpled issues; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abdullah v. Commissioner of Correction, 1 A.3d 1102 (Conn. App. 2010) (petitioner's claims must be raised in habeas petition; issues not raised may be barred on appeal)
- Satchwell v. Commissioner of Correction, 988 A.2d 907 (Conn. App. 2010) (court not required to consider issues not alleged or decided in habeas proceeding)
- Simms v. Warden, 646 A.2d 126 (Conn. 1994) (requires showing that issues are debatable among jurists of reason to proceed)