January 10, 2018
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Tolland, where the court,
Sferrazza, J., rendered judgment denying the
petition; thereafter, the court denied the petition for
certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this
court. Appeal dismissed.
J. McKay, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Michael J. Proto, assistant state's attorney, with whom,
on the brief, was Anne F. Mahoney, state's attorney, for
the appellee (respondent).
Lavine, Sheldon and Bishop, Js.
petitioner, William Albert Artiaco, appeals following the
denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the
judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the habeas court
erred in concluding that he was not denied the effective
assistance of trial counsel and denying his petition for
certification to appeal. Because the petitioner has failed to
adequately brief his claims of error, we decline to review
them, and thus dismiss the petitioner's appeal.
habeas court set forth the following relevant procedural
history. ‘‘The petitioner . . . seeks habeas
corpus relief from a total, effective sentence of
imprisonment for twenty years and ten years special parole,
imposed following a jury trial at which the petitioner was
convicted of sexual assault first degree and risk of injury
to a minor in a file denoted as CR-09-0151382-0; and sexual
assault first degree and risk of injury to a [child] in a
second file denoted CR-09-0138933-T. The latter case had been
transferred to the Windham Judicial District from the
Hartford Judicial District for companionized adjudication. On
June 21, 2013, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal from
the judgments of conviction because no appellate brief was
filed in accordance with that court's orders, State
v. Artiaco, AC 34962.
amended petition sets forth . . . a claim of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel . . . .
his criminal trial, Attorney Christopher Grotz represented
the petitioner, and the petitioner specifies twenty ways in
which trial counsel was ineffective, to wit:
‘‘a. Trial counsel failed to sufficiently prepare
for the petitioner's jury trial;
‘‘b. Trial counsel agreed to represent the
petitioner knowing that he lacked experience in litigating
sexual assault cases;
‘‘c. Trial counsel failed to secure, subpoena or
otherwise arrange to have witnesses known to the trial
counsel available for trial to provide exculpatory testimony
on behalf of the petitioner who would have undermined the
credibility of the state's witnesses and who would have
provided testimony which would ...