*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** JERMAINE WOODS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 41987) Lavine, Alvord and Keller, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who had previously been convicted of murder, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his sentence was illegal because evidence of his diminished capacity and mitigating circumstances were not consid- ered at trial and that his equal protection rights were violated by the state’s decision to try him for murder for a third time after his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted. The habeas court granted the motion to dismiss filed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, and rendered judgment thereon, and, thereafter, denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. The habeas court did not abuse its discretion by granting the respondent’s motion to dismiss the third petition for a writ of habeas corpus without holding a hearing; a hearing on the petition was not required, as the court did not dismiss the petition sua sponte but, instead, pursuant to a motion filed by the respondent and to which the petitioner had filed an objection. 2. The habeas court properly dismissed the petitioner’s claim that evidence of his diminished capacity and of mitigating circumstances were not properly presented to the triers of fact. a. The allegations of the petition could not be construed to allege a claim of ineffective assistance by the petitioner’s second habeas counsel and there was no allegation that reasonably could be construed as a direct or indirect reference to the petitioner’s second habeas counsel; more- over, the petitioner’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective was litigated at the second habeas trial and, thus, was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. b. The court properly dismissed the petitioner’s claim that mitigating circum- stances should have been considered at his sentencing for failing to state a claim for …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
   
New User Registration
*Required field