Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 509

Johnson was convicted in 1999 of multiple offenses and his conviction was upheld on appeal.
In 2002 Johnson filed an amended habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance by pretrial, trial, and appellate counsel.
The habeas court denied the petition and certified appealability; Byron represented Johnson on uncertified appeal but did not raise prosecutorial-impropriety issues.
Johnson later filed two consolidated habeas petitions; in 2009 he amended alleging Byron failed to research/brief a claim of prosecutorial impropriety at closing.
The habeas court rejected the claims, finding no reasonable probability of success on appeal if the issues were raised, and noted appellate counsel’s decisions to limit issues.
Appellate review applied the Strickland framework for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; the court held Byron did not render ineffective assistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Byron was ineffective for not raising prosecutorial impropriety on appeal	Johnson argues Byron failed to brief prosecutorial impropriety in the habeas appeal.	Byron strategically chose not to pursue those claims within the first habeas appeal context.	No ineffective assistance; decisions were reasonable and not likely to prevail on appeal.

Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (Conn. 2008) (distinguishes appellate counsel standards for ineffective assistance)
Bailey v. Commissioner of Correction, 107 Conn.App. 362 (Conn. App. 2008) (issues of appellate counsel with Merits-based analysis)
Alexander v. Commissioner of Correction, 103 Conn.App. 629 (Conn. App. 2007) (axiom that cannot raise new issues not raised below)
Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (Conn. 2006) (limits on raising claims not presented in trial court)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Supreme Court, 1984) (two-part standard for ineffective assistance)