Case ID: a3d_165-2/html/0264-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anthony ROGERS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    AC 38505
    Appellate Court of Connecticut.
    Argued March 7, 2017 Officially released June 20, 2017
    Michael W. Brown, with whom, on the brief, was Vishal K. Garg, for the appellant (petitioner).
    Mitchell S. Brody, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Richard J. Colangelo, Jr., state's attorney, and Tamara Grosso, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
    Prescott, Beach and Bishop, Js.
   PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Anthony Rogers, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in concluding that (1) the state did not violate his right to due process when it withheld third-party culpability evidence from the petitioner in his criminal trial, and (2) he was not denied effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a, attempt to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-59 (a) (5), and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). The underlying facts are set forth in State v. Rogers , 123 Conn.App. 848, 850-56, 3 A.3d 194, cert. denied, 299 Conn. 906, 10 A.3d 524 (2010), in which we affirmed the judgments of the trial court. In December, 2014, the petitioner filed a third amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On September 29, 2015, the habeas court issued a memorandum of decision denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the court granted. This appeal followed.

After a careful review of the record, briefs, and oral argument before this court, we are satisfied that the habeas court thoroughly addressed the arguments raised in this appeal and that it properly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The judgment is affirmed.