Petty v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 185

Petty pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine to four counts of robbery in the first degree.
The court imposed a total sentence of twenty-two years on December 20, 2004.
Petty filed an amended habeas petition on October 16, 2008 alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
A habeas trial was held on December 9, 2008; trial counsel testified about investigation and plea strategy.
Petty did not testify or present other evidence at the habeas trial.
The habeas court denied the petition and denied certification to appeal; Petty appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the denial of certification to appeal an abuse of discretion?	Petty argues denial was an abuse of discretion.	Commissioner argues no abuse; standard factors not met.	No abuse; certification denial affirmed.
Did trial counsel's performance render ineffective assistance prejudice	Petty contends counsel failed to investigate fingerprint evidence and infirmity defenses.	Commissioner contends no showing of deficient performance or prejudice.	Prejudice not shown; no reversal on merits.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (Alford plea framework cited)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (plea-related prejudice standard)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (deficiency and prejudice prongs)
Baillargeon v. Commissioner of Correction, 67 Conn. App. 716 (2002) (deficient performance and prejudice framework in Connecticut)
Ostolaza v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 758 (1992) (evidence burden in habeas challenges)
Owens v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 829 (2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard in habeas appeals)
Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (two-pronged test for certification to appeal)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (affirmative criteria for appellate review of habeas orders)