Gibbs v. Commissioner of Correction

── Gibbs v. Commissioner of Correction ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: June 09, 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. ************************************************  Gibbs v. Commissioner of Correction DAVE GIBBS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 47995) Cradle, C. J., and Elgo and Pellegrino, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who previously had been convicted, after a jury trial, of capital felony, appealed following the granting of his petition for certifica- tion to appeal from the habeas court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed that the court improperly concluded that his right to autonomy in deciding the fundamental objectives of his defense under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, as established in McCoy v. Louisiana (584 U.S. 414), was not implicated under the facts of this case. Held: The habeas court properly denied the petitioner’s habeas petition, as the petitioner failed to establish that his trial counsel made a concession of guilt to the charged offenses during his criminal trial and that he expressly and unambiguously objected to such a concession, and, thus, McCoy was inap- plicable to the petitioner’s claim. Argued November 18, 2025—officially released June 9, 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. Lisa J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner). Denise B. Smoker, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese L. Walcott, state’s attorney, and Michael Proto, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PELLEGRINO, J. The petitioner, Dave Gibbs, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his peti- tion for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that his right to autonomy in deciding the fundamental objectives of  Gibbs v. Commissioner of Correction his defense under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution, as recognized by McCoy v. Louisi- ana, 584 U.S. 414, 138 S. Ct. 1500, 200 L. Ed. 2d 821 (2018), was not implicated under the facts of this case. We conclude that the petitioner failed to establish that his trial counsel made a concession of guilt to the charged offenses during his criminal trial and that he expressly and unambiguously