Jefferson v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 767

Jefferson was convicted of murder in November 2003 and sentenced to fifty years' imprisonment.
On direct appeal, this court described the 2002-2003 sequence leading to the murder, including the shooting at close range and seven total gunshots.
After trial, defense counsel did not pursue certain lesser included offenses; a discussion led to charging the jury on reckless manslaughter, which the jury accepted as the verdict for murder.
Jefferson filed a self-represented habeas petition on May 17, 2004; first habeas counsel later appointed failed to adjudicate trial-related claims, leading to a stipulated judgment restoring direct appeal rights.
With appellate rights restored, Jefferson appealed again, challenging failure to instruct on intentional manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, which this court previously found was not warranted due to insufficient evidence.
A second habeas petition alleged ineffective assistance of trial and first habeas counsel; the habeas court denied relief in a bench decision on February 7, 2011, and denied certification to appeal on February 15, 2011; the appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal	Jefferson argues issues are debatable and deserving review	The state argues the issues are frivolous and not deserving of further review	No abuse of discretion; certification denied
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an intentional manslaughter instruction	Jefferson contends evidence supported the instruction	Whistnant controls; no instruction warranted by law or evidence	Insufficient evidence to warrant the instruction; no prejudice shown
Whether first habeas counsel was ineffective	Ineffective assistance due to failure to pursue trial-related claims	No prejudice since trial counsel was not ineffective	No showing of prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim defeated
Whether the petition for certification to appeal rests on a debatable legal claim	Claims on ineffective assistance and trial strategy merit review	Claims are not reasonably debatable and lack merit	Not reasonably debatable; certification appropriate to deny

Castonguay v. Commissioner of Correction, 300 Conn. 649 (2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for habeas certification)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review in habeas context)
Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 433 (2007) (Merits-based review when assessing frivolousness of habeas issues)
State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576 (1980) (lesser included offense instruction framework)
State v. Jefferson, 114 Conn. App. 566 (2009) (direct appeal ruling on manslaughter-related instruction)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-pronged test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Crocker v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App. 110 (2011) (prejudice prong and effectiveness standard in habeas context)
Edwards v. Commissioner of Correction, 141 Conn. App. 430 (2013) (requirement to show prejudice when habeas counsel claims rely on trial counsel claims)