Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 194 Conn.App. 239

Luis Perez pleaded guilty on May 5, 2006 to two counts of murder and one count of assault in the first degree; he was sentenced to 60 years' imprisonment.
Perez filed a habeas petition (dec. 5, 2014; amended May 31, 2017) alleging trial counsel coerced his plea and threatened that his grandmother and cousin would go to prison if he did not plead guilty.
At the habeas trial (Nov. 9, 2017) Perez and his grandmother, Ana Hernandez, testified about a May 4, 2006 meeting where counsel allegedly made threats; attorneys Barry Butler and Miles Gerety denied using threats and testified they met to accommodate Perez’s request.
The habeas court credited Butler and Gerety’s testimony and found Perez and Hernandez not credible, concluding Perez failed to prove coercion or ineffective assistance.
The habeas court denied the amended petition and refused certification to appeal.
The Appellate Court dismissed Perez’s appeal, holding the denial of certification was not an abuse of discretion because the claim turned on credibility determinations that are not debatable among jurists of reason.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the habeas court abused its discretion by denying certification to appeal	Perez: denial was an abuse because his claims of coerced plea and ineffective assistance raise debatable issues	Commissioner: denial proper because claims relied solely on testimony the habeas court found not credible	Denied — no abuse: issues hinge on credibility and thus are not debatable among jurists of reason
Whether counsel rendered ineffective assistance / plea was coerced	Perez: Butler and Gerety threatened family members to force plea, making plea involuntary	State: attorneys denied coercion; meeting was to reassure Perez and he had decided to plead	Denied — habeas court credited attorneys and rejected Perez’s evidence, so claims fail

Jefferson v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 767 (2013) (standard for abuse of discretion when denying certification to appeal)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (issues must be debatable among jurists of reason to warrant certification)
Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 433 (2007) (appellate review of certification denials requires consideration of merits to determine frivolity)
Necaise v. Commissioner of Correction, 112 Conn. App. 817 (2009) (habeas judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility)
Washington v. Commissioner of Correction, 166 Conn. App. 331 (2016) (credibility determinations are not debatable among jurists of reason)