Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fullenwiley v. Commissioner of Correction

Appellate Court of Connecticut

March 15, 2016

CHARLES FULLENWILEY
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

         Argued 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.

          SYLLABUS

         The 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.

         Robert J. McKay, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

         Sarah 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).

         DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Flynn, Js.

          OPINION

Page 1260

          [163 Conn.App. 762] PER CURIAM.

          The petitioner, Charles Fullenwiley, appeals following the denial of his petition

Page 1261

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.

         The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On June 3, 2008, the petitioner pleaded guilty, under the Alford [1] 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.

         The 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.