Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction

── Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 21, 2026 Author: Cradle Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of 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 Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the 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 an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction WILLIE J. COLEMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 47279) Cradle, C. J., and Elgo and Pellegrino, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who previously had been convicted of murder, appealed, on the granting of certification, from the habeas court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed, inter alia, that the court incorrectly concluded that McCoy v. Louisiana (584 U.S. 414), in which the United States Supreme Court recognized a criminal defendant’s right under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution to autonomy in deciding the fundamental objectives of his defense, was not implicated under the facts of this case. Held: The habeas court correctly concluded that McCoy was inapplicable to the petitioner’s case, as, although the petitioner’s counsel at his criminal trial conceded the petitioner’s guilt to the crime of criminally negligent homicide during closing argument, the court found that counsel had discussed with the petitioner his intention to concede the petitioner’s guilt to criminally negligent homicide, that decision was consistent with the theory of defense, and the petitioner never objected to that concession and consistently admit- ted that he stabbed the victim but did not do so with the intent to kill her. The petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel was unavailing, as the petitioner failed to show that his trial counsel’s concession of his guilt to criminally negligent homicide was not objectively reasonable and, thus, the petitioner failed to demonstrate deficient performance. Argued November 18, 2025—officially released April 21, 2026 Procedural History Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court, Bhatt, J.; judgment denying the petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed. Hope J. Estrella, deputy assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner). Rocco A. Chiarenza, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese L. Walcott, state’s attorney, and Angela R. Macchiarulo, supervi- sory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respon- dent).  Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction Opinion CRADLE, C. J. In this certified appeal, the petitioner, Willie J. Coleman, appeals from