January 14, 2016.
Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the
Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried
to the court, Sferrazza, J.; judgment denying the petition;
thereafter, the court denied the petition for certification
to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court.
petitioner, who had been convicted of the crime of possession
of child pornography in the first degree following a guilty
plea under the Alford doctrine, sought a writ of
habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel had provided
ineffective assistance in his representation of the
petitioner during plea negotiations with the state. The
habeas court rendered judgment denying the petition,
concluding that the petitioner had not established that he
was prejudiced by his counsel's representation.
Thereafter, the habeas court denied the petition for
certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this
court. Held that the petitioner failed to
demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in
denying the petition for certification to appeal, the
petitioner having failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of
his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel; the
petitioner had not contested in his appellate brief the
habeas court's finding of lack of prejudice, and,
therefore, he failed to show, pursuant to the prejudice prong
in the context of a guilty plea, that he would not have
pleaded guilty but for the allegedly deficient performance of
his trial counsel.
J. McKay, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Hanna, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Eva B.
Lenczewski, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for
the appellee (respondent).
C. J., and Beach and Flynn, Js.
Conn.App. 762] PER CURIAM.
petitioner, Charles Fullenwiley, appeals following the denial
of his petition
for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas
court denying his revised amended petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the
court improperly denied (1) his petition for certification to
appeal and (2) his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Because the petitioner has not demonstrated that the court
abused its discretion in denying the petition for
certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
resolution of this appeal. On June 3, 2008, the petitioner
pleaded guilty, under the Alford  doctrine, to
possession of child pornography in the first degree. He was
sentenced to a term of twenty years incarceration, execution
suspended after twelve years, and fifteen years of probation.
The petitioner filed a revised amended petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, which contained two claims--ineffective
assistance of trial counsel and actual innocence. The
petitioner raises only the former claim on appeal.
habeas court denied the petitioner's revised amended
petition for habeas corpus relief. The court noted that
" the state's case against the petitioner was
overwhelming. . . . The petitioner had admitted to possessing
this material while knowing its nature. . . . The
petitioner's own forensic expert reported to [the
petitioner's trial counsel] that the depictions were
genuine photographic recordings and not computer generated
simulations. . . . The petitioner's criminal history at
the time of his prosecution for this charge was
atrocious." The court concluded that the
petitioner's allegations of ...