Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 114 A.3d 925

Marcus Moye was convicted of murder and carrying a pistol without a permit; sentenced to 45 years for murder and a consecutive 5 years for the weapons charge (50 years total). Appellate Court affirmed the conviction on direct appeal.
Moye filed a habeas petition alleging several instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to investigate an alibi, subpoena witnesses, advise about plea, and present sentencing witnesses); the habeas court denied relief.
On appeal from the habeas denial, Moye raised for the first time an additional ineffective assistance theory: counsel failed to assert a double jeopardy bar to the weapons conviction because of an earlier weapons charge arising from a separate incident.
Moye conceded the double jeopardy/ineffective assistance claim was unpreserved and sought review under State v. Golding, which permits appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims in narrow circumstances.
The Appellate Court refused Golding review for claims raised for the first time on habeas appeal; this Court granted certification on whether Golding review is available for unpreserved claims raised first on habeas appeal.

Issue	Moye's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether Golding review is available in a habeas appeal for an unpreserved constitutional claim first raised on appeal	Golding applies to any constitutional claim cognizable in the habeas court; therefore his unpreserved ineffective assistance claim should be reviewed	Golding applies only to challenges to the habeas court’s own actions; unpreserved trial-stage claims first raised on habeas appeal are not eligible	Golding review is unavailable for unpreserved trial-stage claims first raised on habeas appeal because Golding in habeas is limited to challenges to the habeas court’s actions

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (recognizes limited appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 218 Conn. 403 (holds Evans/Golding do not apply to freestanding constitutional claims first raised in habeas)
Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62 (permits Golding review in habeas appeals for claims challenging actions of the habeas court itself)
Safford v. Warden, 223 Conn. 180 (interprets Johnson as barring Golding review in habeas corpus actions for certain claims)
Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 199 (App. Ct. decision holding Golding review unavailable for unpreserved claims raised first on habeas appeal)
State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 (predecessor to Golding on review of unpreserved claims)
State v. Brunetti, 279 Conn. 39 (explains Golding’s rationale and limits)