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. ****************************************************** CURTISS EBRON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 19574)
Landau, Spear and Daly, Js. Argued October 26--officially released December 19, 2000 Counsel

David B. Rozwaski, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was James A. Shanley, Jr., for the appellant (petitioner). Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Curtiss Ebron, appeals following the denial by the habeas court of his petition for certification to appeal from the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal and (2) determined that he was not denied effective assistance of counsel. We dismiss the appeal. The petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ

of habeas corpus alleging that his criminal trial attorney was ineffective in that he failed (1) to select jurors who would comprise a fair and impartial jury, (2) to inquire of the prospective jurors their racial attributes, (3) to move to suppress unreliable identification evidence and (4) to advise the petitioner properly. Following a hearing, the court concluded that the petitioner had failed to show that counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The court further held that the petitioner had failed to show, in light of the evidence, that there was a reasonable probability that the result would have been different but for counsel's unprofessional errors. Accordingly, the court denied the petition. The court further denied the petition for certification to appeal ``as wholly frivolous.'' The petitioner then filed the present appeal, claiming that his trial counsel was ineffective in his selection of the jury and in his advising the petitioner to testify without first addressing his prior convictions. ``Faced with the habeas court's denial of certification to appeal, a petitioner's first burden is to demonstrate that the habeas court's ruling constituted an abuse of discretion. . . . If the petitioner succeeds in surmounting that hurdle, the petitioner must then demonstrate that the judgment of the habeas court should be reversed on its merits.'' (Citations omitted.) Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994). ``This court does not retry the case or evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. . . . Rather, we must defer to the [trier of fact's] assessment of the credibility of the witnesses based on its firsthand observation of their conduct, demeanor and attitude.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Colon v. Commissioner of Correction, 55 Conn. App. 763, 765, 741 A.2d 2 (1999), cert. denied, 252 Conn. 921, 744 A.2d 437 (2000). ``The habeas judge, as the trier of facts, is the sole arbiter of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.'' Velez v. Commissioner of Correction, 57 Conn. App. 307, 309, 748 A.2d 350 (2000); see also 2 B. Holden & J. Daly, Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed. 1988)

Download Ebron v. Commissioner of Correction.pdf

Connecticut Law