Henderson v. Commissioner of Correction

*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** MARK HENDERSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 39493) Keller, Elgo and Beach, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who had been convicted, on a guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree as a persistent dangerous felony offender, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the trial court deprived him of his right to due process in his criminal case by, inter alia, refusing to let him represent himself or to allow his appointed trial counsel, D, to withdraw, and that D provided ineffective assistance. The habeas court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition and, thereafter, denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. He claimed, inter alia, that the habeas court, in denying his petition for certification to appeal, erroneously determined that, by virtue of his unconditional guilty plea, he had waived his pretrial claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and structural error related to his right of self- representation. Held: 1. The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal with respect to the petitioner’s claims that the habeas court improperly refused to permit him to represent himself, to permit D to withdraw as counsel, to provide him with an investigator and to recuse itself: because an unconditional guilty plea deprives a petitioner of the ability to collaterally challenge his conviction when the claims are based on nonjurisdictional defects that are unrelated to the voluntariness of the plea, the petitioner was unable to demonstrate that he did not implicitly waive the claims at issue by virtue of his unconditional guilty plea, and the petitioner’s reliance on Hill v. Lockhart (474 U.S. 52) for the proposition that it prohibits the application of the waiver rule to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel following an unconditional guilty plea was unavailing, as Hill was not inconsistent with the application of the waiver ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals