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. ******************************************************

WILLIAM C.1 v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 31609)
Bishop, Lavine and Alvord, Js. Submitted on briefs October 15, 2010--officially released January 18, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Nazzaro, J.) Robert E. Byron, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). John A. Connelly, state's attorney, and Rita M. Shair and Angela R. Macchiarulo, senior assistant state's attorneys, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).

Opinion

ALVORD, J. The petitioner, William C., 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 provided ineffective assistance. More specifically, the petitioner claims that there was merit to his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel because counsel failed to request a contemporaneous limiting instruction regarding the constancy of accusation testimony of six witnesses. We dismiss the appeal. In 2005, following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of sexual assault in a spousal relationship in violation of General Statutes

Download William C. v. Commissioner of Correction.pdf

Connecticut Law