Ruiz v. Commissioner of Correction

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing 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 Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest 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 the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** JESUS RUIZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 41947) Alvord, Bright and Flynn, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who had been convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. He claimed, inter alia, that his trial counsel were deficient in representing him at a pretrial hearing on a motion in limine filed by the state, which sought permission to videotape the testimony of the child victim in the petitioner’s absence, pursuant to State v. Jarzbek (204 Conn. 683). The habeas court rendered judgment denying the petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. The habeas court had found that the petitioner failed to show that he was prejudiced by the allegedly deficient perfor- mance of his trial counsel. This court thereafter reversed in part the habeas court’s judgment and remanded the case to the habeas court for further proceedings. This court concluded that the habeas court’s prejudice analysis was improper. This court’s remand order directed the habeas court to consider prejudice and, if necessary for the ultimate resolution of the petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim, to consider the petitioner’s allegations of deficient performance. Thereafter, on remand, the habeas court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. He claimed, inter alia, that the habeas court improperly concluded that his right to effective assistance of counsel was not vio- lated by the performance of his trial counsel in challenging the reliability of the state’s witness, G, at the Jarzbek hearing. Held that the habeas court correctly determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate deficient performance of his trial counsel: trial counsel challenged G’s testimony on multiple grounds, including, inter …Original document