Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction

── Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 28, 2026 Author: Elgo 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. ************************************************  Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction EFRAIN JOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 47645) Elgo, Suarez and Norcott, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who previously had been convicted after a jury trial of felony murder and kidnapping, appealed following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the habeas court’s judgment denying his peti- tion for a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed, inter alia, that his criminal trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance in failing to meaningfully convey to him the state’s last best plea offer. Held: The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s peti- tion for certification to appeal, as the petitioner failed to establish that the issues he raised were debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve them in a different manner, or that the questions were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. The habeas court properly concluded that the petitioner’s criminal trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance, as the court’s finding that counsel adequately conveyed the state’s plea offer to the petitioner was not clearly erroneous, the court having credited counsel’s testimony that he had relayed the offer to the petitioner, explained the strengths and weaknesses of the state’s case, and recommended that the petitioner accept the offer. The habeas court did not err in denying the petitioner’s claim that the state violated his right to due process under Brady v. Maryland (373 U.S. 83) when it failed to disclose to him an alleged agreement not to prosecute a witness in exchange for the witness’ testimony at the petitioner’s criminal trial, the petitioner having presented no evidence of any such agreement or understanding, implicit or explicit, between the state and the witness. Submitted on briefs January 20—officially released April 28, 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; thereafter, the court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed. J. Patten Brown III, assigned counsel, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner).  Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction Christopher A. Alexy, senior assistant state’s attorney, and Joseph T. Corradino, state’s