*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. 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 advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears 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 Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** JERMAINE ROSS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 45062) Bright, C. J., and Prescott and Moll, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who had been convicted, on a plea of guilty, of the crime of kidnapping in the second degree, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that he was actually innocent and that his court- appointed standby counsel, R, had rendered ineffective assistance when the petitioner represented himself during his second criminal trial. At the petitioner’s first criminal trial, the state introduced evidence that the petitioner had lured the victim into his car by promising her money in exchange for sex and then drove to a market where video footage from two surveillance cameras showed the victim getting out of the car, entering the market to make a purchase and then reentering the car before it was driven away. When the victim told the petitioner that she had changed her mind and asked that he drop her off, he refused and drove to a parking lot where he sexually assaulted her. After the petition- er’s first criminal trial ended in a mistrial, the petitioner invoked his right to represent himself at his retrial and proceeded with R acting as standby counsel. During jury selection, the trial court ordered the petitioner removed from the courtroom because of his belligerent con- duct and directed R to continue with jury selection. The petitioner resumed self-representation before the completion of jury selection and his acceptance of the state’s plea offer. The habeas court granted in part the motion filed by the respondent Commissioner of Correction to dismiss the petitioner’s habeas petition. At the habeas trial, the petitioner claimed, inter alia, that inconsistencies in the victim’s recounting of events and discrepancies in the video surveillance footage that under- mined the victim’s testimony that she was at the market with him consti- tuted newly discovered evidence that established his …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals