Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

AMIR BROOKS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 30809)
Gruendel, Alvord and Bear, Js. Argued January 13--officially released April 19, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Nazzaro, J.) Temmy Ann Pieszak, chief of habeas corpus services, for the appellant (petitioner). James M. Ralls, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Kelly A. Masi, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

Opinion

BEAR, J. The petitioner, Amir Brooks, appeals following the habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion when it denied his petition for certification to appeal and improperly rejected his claim that his trial counsel had rendered ineffective assistance.1 He also claims that the habeas court erred in its analysis of justification and motive and that it failed to apply the proper legal standard in determining whether the petitioner had proven prejudice. We dismiss the appeal. The following facts, as set forth by this court in the petitioner's direct appeal, are relevant to the present appeal. ``The [petitioner's] arrest and subsequent conviction arise out of a rather bizarre set of circumstances. From the evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that while the [petitioner] was sitting on some steps in front of a multitenant building in an incoherent state, he was robbed by two young boys who went through his pockets, stealing his money, beeper and cell phone. Jennifer Allen, a female tenant in that building who witnessed the incident, and Fletcher Moore, the ultimate victim in this criminal matter, went to the [petitioner's] aid and attempted to help him as he was falling, stumbling and bleeding from a cut on his face.'' State v. Brooks, 88 Conn. App. 204, 205

Download Brooks v. Commissioner of Correction.pdf

Connecticut Law