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. ****************************************************** JACOB CRUMP v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 20338)
Schaller, Zarella and Pellegrino, Js. Submitted on briefs September 15--officially released December 5, 2000 Counsel

Patrice A. Cohan, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). Linda N. Howe, assistant state's attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion

PELLEGRINO, J. The petitioner, Jacob Crump, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus following his conviction after a guilty plea. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly rejected his assertion that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel because he would not have pleaded guilty if his counsel had explained to him the distinction between concurrent and consecutive sentencing. We do not find any merit in the petitioner's claim. The following facts and procedural history are rele-

vant to our disposition of this appeal. On February 9, 1995, the petitioner, who was represented by public defender Miles Gerety, entered a guilty plea under the Alford doctrine1 to a four count information alleging assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statues

Download Crump v. Commissioner of Correction.pdf

Connecticut Law