Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialmotionhabeas corpus
appealpleamotionhabeas corpusguilty plea

Related Cases

General Utilities & Operating Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 200, 56 S.Ct. 185, 80 L.Ed. 154, 35-2 USTC P 9658, 36-1 USTC P 9012, 16 A.F.T.R. 1126, 1936-1 C.B. 214
View Case »
Plantation Patterns, Incorperated v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue., 409 U.S. 1076, 93 S.Ct. 683 (Mem), 34 L.Ed.2d 664
View Case »
Selfe v. U.S., 778 F.2d 769, 57 A.F.T.R.2d 86-464, 86-1 USTC P 9115
View Case »
Armstrong v. Phinney, 394 F.2d 661, 21 A.F.T.R.2d 1260, 68-1 USTC P 9355
View Case »
Middleton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 77 T.C. 310
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Campbell v. Commissioner of Correction, 132 Conn.App. 263, 31 A.3d 1182

Facts

Roosevelt Campbell was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the first degree, receiving a 20-year sentence for manslaughter and a consecutive 10-year sentence for assault, with a five-year mandatory minimum. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel after his habeas counsel sought to withdraw her appearance, which the court denied as untimely. During the habeas trial, Campbell expressed dissatisfaction with his counsel and believed his sentences would run concurrently.

On February 8, 2006, the petitioner entered a guilty plea, pursuant to the Alford doctrine, to manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the first degree. The court sentenced the petitioner to twenty years on the manslaughter charge, and ten years on the assault charge, to run consecutively, with a five year mandatory minimum sentence.

Issue

Did the habeas court abuse its discretion in denying Campbell's petition for certification to appeal?

Did the habeas court abuse its discretion in denying Campbell's petition for certification to appeal?

Rule

A petitioner can obtain appellate review of the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition only by demonstrating that the denial of certification constituted an abuse of discretion and that the habeas court's decision should be reversed on the merits.

A petitioner can obtain appellate review of the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition only by demonstrating that the denial of certification constituted an abuse of discretion and that the habeas court's decision should be reversed on the merits.

Analysis

The court found that Campbell's petition for certification to appeal cited only 'sentencing procedures' as the basis for review and did not include claims regarding the denial of his counsel's motion to withdraw or ineffective assistance of counsel. Since these issues were not raised in the petition for certification, the court concluded that the habeas court was not adequately apprised of the issues Campbell now asserts on appeal.

The court found that Campbell's petition for certification to appeal cited only 'sentencing procedures' as the basis for review and did not include claims regarding the denial of his counsel's motion to withdraw or ineffective assistance of counsel.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court dismissed Campbell's appeal, affirming the habeas court's decision to deny the petition for certification.

The Appellate Court dismissed Campbell's appeal, affirming the habeas court's decision to deny the petition for certification.

Who won?

The Commissioner of Correction prevailed in the case because the Appellate Court upheld the habeas court's denial of Campbell's petition for certification to appeal.

The Commissioner of Correction prevailed in the case because the Appellate Court upheld the habeas court's denial of Campbell's petition for certification to appeal.

You must be