Synakorn v. Commissioner of Correction, 124 Conn. App. 768

Petitioner Boone Synakorn was convicted of possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell, possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1000 feet of a school, and possession of marijuana with intent to sell; he received a 30-year prison term (later reduced on review).
He unsuccessfully appealed his conviction on direct appeal in State v. Synakorn, 239 Conn. 427 (1996).
On September 10, 2008, Synakorn filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
He claimed appellate counsel failed to raise (a) a claim that the trial court improperly denied motions for mistrial and a new trial based on prejudicial testimony, and (b) a claim of insufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.
The habeas court denied the petition for a writ and the petition for certification to appeal on February 11 and February 23, 2009, respectively.
The Appellate Court dismissed Synakorn’s appeal, applying Simms v. Warden and Strickland v. Washington to determine lack of abuse of discretion and absence of merit in the underlying claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion	Synakorn contends appellate counsel were ineffective for failures on appeal, warranting review.	State contends the habeas court properly exercised discretion and that underlying claims lack merit.	No abuse of discretion; petition for certification to appeal is denied.
Whether appellate counsel’s failure to raise a sufficiency claim was ineffective	Synakorn argues there was insufficient evidence of constructive possession of cocaine.	State argues evidence, including Lay and Dudac testimony, supported dominion and control, negating ineffective assistance.	No reasonable probability that appeal would have prevailed; insufficient-evidence claim not viable.

Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (two-pronged abuse of discretion and merits test for habeas denial appeal)
Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (adopted two-pronged standard for habeas review)
Gregory v. Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn. App. 430 (2008) (prejudice prong requires reasonable probability of different outcome on appeal)
Small v. Commissioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 707 (2008) (prejudice analysis for appellate counsel effectiveness)
Moore v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 530 (2010) (appellate counsel not required to raise every conceivable issue)
State v. Lynch, 123 Conn. App. 479 (2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for decisions on mistrial/new-trial claims)
State v. Vazquez, 119 Conn. App. 249 (2010) (standard governing appellate review of habeas claims)
State v. Pettigrew, 124 Conn. App. 9 (2010) (circumstantial-evidence sufficiency framework)
Tuck v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 189 (2010) (Strickland prejudice standard applied on appeal)
Watson v. Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn. App. 160 (2008) (right to effective appellate counsel extends through first appeal of right)
State v. Synakorn, 239 Conn. 427 (1996) (trial evidence linking petitioner to narcotics and possession doctrine)