******************************************************

The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the

beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will

be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the

date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative

date for the beginning of all time periods for filing

postopinion motions and petitions for certification is

the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion.

In no event will any such motions be accepted before

the ‘‘officially released’’ date.

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 electronic version

of an opinion and the print version appearing in the

Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

latest print version is to be considered authoritative.

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying

the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official

Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service

and 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

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************
WAYNE J. JONES, SR. v. COMMISSIONER

OF CORRECTION

(AC 37685)

Lavine, Beach and Bishop, Js.

Argued October 17—officially released November 22, 2016

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Tolland, Oliver, J.)

Craig A. Sullivan, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

Emily D. Trudeau, assistant state’s attorney, with

whom, on the brief, was John C. Smriga, for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Wayne J. Jones, Sr.,

appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal,

the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly

concluded that counsel who represented him on a prior

petition for a writ of habeas provided ineffective assistance. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The petitioner was convicted of sexual assault in the

first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a)

(1), burglary in the first degree in violation of General

Statutes (Rev. to 2005) § 53a-101 (a) (2) and kidnapping

in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a92 (a) (2) (B) for crimes committed on August 24, 2005.

State v. Jones, 115 Conn. App. 581, 583, 974 A.2d 72,

cert. denied, 293 Conn. 916, 979 A.2d 492 (2009). The

petitioner was sentenced to thirty-five years in prison,

execution suspended aftertwenty-five years, and thirtyfive years of probation. This court affirmed the petitioner’s conviction. Id., 603. Thereafter, the petitioner filed

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied

by the habeas court(T. Santos, J.). This court dismissed

the petitioner’s appeal from the denial of his first habeas

corpus petition. Jones v. Commissioner of Correction,

134 Conn. App. 903, 38 A.3d 1253 (2012).

The petitioner subsequently filed the present petition

for a writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that

his prior habeas counsel rendered ineffective assistance. The focus of the petitioner’s claim of ineffective

assistance is on the DNA evidence presented at his

criminal trial. Following a trial held on October 16, 2014,

the habeas court, Oliver, J., denied the petition for a

writ of habeas corpus. Judge Oliver subsequently

granted the petition for certification to appeal.

Our examination of the record on appeal and the

briefs and arguments of the parties persuades us that

the judgment of the habeas court should be affirmed.

The habeas court’s decision fully addresses the arguments raised in the present appeal, and we adopt its

concise and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the relevant facts and the applicable law on

the issues. Jones v. Commissioner of Correction, 169

Conn. App. 407, A.3d (2014) (appendix). It

serves no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion

contained therein. Furka v. Commissioner of Correction, 21 Conn. App. 298, 299, 573 A.2d 358, cert. denied,

215 Conn. 810, 576 A.2d 539 (1990).

The judgment is affirmed.