****************************************************** 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 subjectto modification andtechnical 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 ConnecticutAppellate 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 andinthe Connecticut LawJournal andboundvolumes 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.

******************************************************REYNALDO ARROYO v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 38431)
Alvord, Mullins and Norcott, Js. Argued January 19—officially released April 25, 2017 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Tolland, Sferrazza, J.)
Moira L. Buckley, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
BruceR. Lockwood, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state’s attorney, and Angela R. Macchiarulo and Michael J. Proto, senior assistant state’s attorneys, for the appellee (respondent).Opinion ALVORD, J. Thepetitioner, ReynaldoArroyo, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment ofthe habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claimsthatthe court(1) abuseditsdiscretionindenying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffectiveassistanceandthathisclaimofprosecutorial impropriety was procedurally defaulted. Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, we dismiss the appeal.
The following factual and procedural history is relevant to this appeal. In March, 2001, the petitioner, a crack cocaine addict, lived with his girlfriend, Sherry Krick, in her apartment in a condominium complex in Middletown. RichmondL. Perry, acrackcocaine dealer, livedinthe same condominiumcomplex. Thepetitioner knew Perryand often actedas a ‘‘runner,’’ orintermediary, for him in his drug dealing business.
In the afternoon ofMarch 28, 2001, at approximately 2p.m., thepetitioneraskedhisneighbor, Charles Smith, ifhe could borrow money, promising to pay the money back after he went on ‘‘a mission.’’ Later that evening, atabout 8p.m., thepetitionerandPerry droveto Mike’s Package Store in Middlefield. While in the store, an argument ensuedbetweenthepetitioner, Perry, andthe
owner of the store, Edmund Caruso. As the argument escalated, Perry drew a nine millimeter firearm. In response, Caruso grabbed his tear gas canister and sprayed it at Perry and the petitioner. Perry then shot Caruso several times, and Caruso subsequently died as
a result of his wounds. Following the shooting, the petitioner and Perry fled from the scene with the package store’s cash register.
When they returned to their condominium complex, Perry first went home to change his clothing, which
wascoveredinteargas, andtoshower.Aftershowering, the petitioner and Perry wrapped the register in the petitioner’s blanket and carried it into his and Krick’s apartment, where the petitioner used a screwdriver to open it. The petitioner and Perry divided the proceeds from the register and then hid it behind the bedroom dresser.
That same evening, the petitioner and Perry offered to sell Smith the firearm that they used in the robbery, but he declined to purchase it. The petitioner subsequently arranged to sell the firearm to Juan Cruz, anothercrackcocaine dealerwithwhomhewas associated. On March 31, 2001, the petitioner and Perry met with Cruz and sold him the firearm, assuring him that it was ‘‘clean,’’ i.e., not associated with any crimes.1
In the days following the robbery, the petitionerspoke to Smith about the result of his ‘‘mission.’’ Two
or three days after the robbery, Smith visited Krick’s apartment. The petitioner showed Smith the register behind the bedroom dresser and told him that ‘‘it was from his mission, but he had to get rid ofit.’’ Sometime thereafter, Smith saw the petitioner throw the register into the dumpster outside the condominium complex. The petitioner later told Smith that ‘‘things went bad when he went to do that mission. Things went bad. The old man got killed. No one meant for the old man to get killed.’’ Duringthe course ofthe investigation ofthe robbery, the petitionermade several written and oral statements to the police.2 The petitioner admitted to knowing details about the robbery, but he insisted that Perry committed the robbery and murder and told him about itafterward. Nevertheless, thepetitioneracknowledged that Perry came to Krick’s apartment with the register after the robbery. He also admitted that he (1) broke open the register with his screwdriver, (2) shared the cash proceeds from the register with Perry, (3) hid the register behind the dresser in his and Krick’s bedroom, (4) disposed of the register in a dumpster outside of hisand Krick’sapartment, and (5) facilitatedandparticipated in the sale to Cruz of the firearm used during the robbery. Thereafter, the petitioner was charged with felony murder, murder, robbery in the first degree, larceny in the fifth degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. While incarcerated and awaiting trial, thepetitionermade statementstotwo inmates inwhich he admitted to participating in the robbery with Perry and described what happened during and after the robbery. To one ofthese inmates, who was the petitioner’s friend and former roommate, the petitioner further expressed his concern that his alibi witnesses, Krick and a ‘‘married guy,’’3 were not corroborating his story about being home the evening of the robbery.
After a trial, the jury found the petitioner guilty of felony murder, larceny in the fifth degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. The jury found him not guilty, however, of murder and robbery inthe first degree, whichwere the only counts inwhich the petitioner was charged with personally possessing the firearm or shooting the victim.4Statev. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558, 561–62, 973 A.2d 1254 (2009), cert. denied, 559 U.S. 911, 130 S. Ct. 1296, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1086 (2010). The court thereafter rendered judgment accordingly and sentenced the petitioner to a total effective term ofsixtyyearsimprisonment. Thepetitioner’sconviction
was affirmed on direct appeal. Id., 561.
The petitioner initiated this habeas action on April 8, 2010. On March 13, 2013, the petitioner filed a six count amended petition. Relevant to this appeal, the petitioner claimed that his trial counsel rendered inef-fective assistance by not (1) offering Perry’s plea hearingtranscriptasanexhibit; (2)presentingthetestimony ofanexpertwitness; and (3) offering ‘‘adepictionofthe floorplan and/orphysical layout’’ ofKrick’s apartment. Additionally, the petitioner claimedthatthe prosecutor committed certain improprieties during her case-inchief and closing argument by soliciting and utilizing Perry’s false trial testimony concerning his plea agreement with the state. After a two day trial, the habeas court denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the petition for certification to appeal. This appeal followed.
The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred by denying his claims ofineffective assistance of trial counsel and prosecutorial impropriety. We conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition for certification to appeal. ‘‘We begin by setting forth the applicable standard of review and procedural hurdles that the petitioner must surmountto obtain appellate review ofthe merits ofahabeas court’s denial ofthe habeas petition following denial of certification to appeal. In Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 187, 640 A.2d 601 (1994), [our Supreme Court] concluded that

. . . [General Statutes] § 52-470 (b) prevents areviewing courtfromhearingthe merits ofahabeas appealfollowingthe denial of certification to appeal unless the petitioner establishes that the denial of certification constituted an abuse of discretionbythehabeascourt. InSimmsv. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 615–16, 646 A.2d 126 (1994), [our Supreme Court] incorporated the factors adopted by the United States Supreme Court inLozadav. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431–32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991), as the appropriate standard for determining whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal. This standard requires the petitioner to demonstratethatthe issuesare debatable amongjurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.

. . . A petitioner who establishes an abuse of discretion through one ofthe factors listed above must then demonstrate that the judgment of the habeas court should be reversed on its merits.

. . . In determining whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner’s request for certification, we necessarily must consider the merits ofthe petitioner’s underlying claims to determine whether the habeas court reasonably determined that the petitioner’s appeal was frivolous.

. . . ‘‘The conclusions reached by the trial court in its decision to dismiss [a] habeas petition are matters of law, subject to plenary review.

. . . [When] the legalconclusions ofthe court are challenged, [the reviewing court] must determine whether they are legally and logically correct

. . . and whether they find support in the facts that appearin the record.

. . . To the extent that factual findings are challenged, this court cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court unless they are clearly erroneous

. . . . [A] finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it

. . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left withthe definite and firm convictionthatamistakehasbeencommitted.’’ (Citationomitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Brewer v. Commissioner of Correction, 162 Conn. App. 8, 12, 130 A.3d 882 (2015). Having set forth the standard of review, we will consider the merits of the claims raised by the petitioner.
I
We begin by addressing the petitioner’s two claims relating to Perry’s plea agreement with the state. First, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erroneously concluded that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance when he failed to offer Perry’s plea hearing transcript as an exhibit. Second, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erroneously concluded that his prosecutorial impropriety claim was procedurally defaulted. Thatsecondclaimwasbasedontheprosecutor’s allegedsolicitation anduse duringthe state’s casein-chiefand closing argument ofPerry’s false testimony concerninghispleaagreement. Thepetitionercontends that the procedural default was cured by good cause, namely, ineffective assistance oftrial counsel in failing to raise aclaim ofprosecutorial improprietyattrial and sentencingandinfailingtopreservethisissuefordirect appeal. We disagree.
The following additional facts are relevant to both of these claims. On January 21, 2003, Perry pleaded guilty to felony murder and robbery in the first degree. During her recitation ofthe factual basis for the guilty pleas, the prosecutor, who was also prosecuting the petitioner’s case, did not indicate which of the two defendants the state believed committed the shooting; instead, she statedthat ‘‘Mr. Caruso was shot and killed by one ofthe participants in the robbery

. . . who was Mr. Perry orMr. Arroyo.’’5Aftersettingforththe factual basis for the pleas, the prosecutor explained that she had agreed to recommend a sentence of ‘‘forty-five yearsto serve.’’ She emphasizedthat ‘‘ourofferoffortyfive years is predicated and based on [Perry’s] agreementtotestifyin atruthful manneronlyregarding Mr. Arroyo’s participation in the robbery

. . . .’’ During the court’s canvass, Perry repeatedly confirmed that he understood that the recommended sentence of forty-five years was contingent on his truthful testimony at the petitioner’s criminal trial. After thecourt accepted Perry’s guilty pleas, Perry’s counsel asked the prosecutor to clarify what the state’s definition oftruthful was, andthe court askedthe prosecutor whether Perry’s last statement6 ‘‘was essentially the truth.’’ The prosecutor agreed that the last statement
was ‘‘essentially the truth,’’ and then she further clarified: ‘‘The state’s understanding ofthe truth is that Mr. Perryparticipatedintherobbery, whichledtothe death of Mr. Caruso, in conjunction of Mr. Arroyo.’’
On December 1 and 2, 2004, Perry testified at the petitioner’s criminal trial. During direct examination, Perry confirmedthatthe prosecutorwas also prosecuting him for his involvement in the robbery and that although he had pleaded guilty to two offenses, he had not been sentenced. Perry also confirmed that he was going to receive a forty-five year sentence, that there
was no chance that the state would recommend less thanforty-five years, andthatacondition ofhimreceiving ‘‘the forty-five year offer’’ was not that he identify the petitioner as the shooter.
Trial counsel began his cross-examination by highlighting that although Perry pleaded guilty to felony murder and robbery in the first degree, he still had four pending charges against him—murder, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, larceny in the fifth degree, and violation of probation.7 Trial counsel discussed with Perrythe factthat his sentencing had been postponed until after his testimony in the petitioner’s trial and that, unless he testified ‘‘in a manner satisfactory to the state,’’ he will not receive a forty-five year sentence. Perry disagreed with trial counsel’s assertion that receiving aforty-five year sentence was contingent
on his having testified at the petitioner’s trial and insisted that forty-five years was ‘‘going to be on the table no matter what.’’ Thereafter, trial counsel thoroughly and systematicallyreviewedwith Perrythe maximumterm ofimprisonment authorized for each of the five crimes with which he was charged in connection with his involvement in the robbery. Trial counsel emphasized at the beginning and end of this lengthy analysis that Perry’s maximum sentencing exposure for all of these crimes
was 185 years imprisonment. Trial counsel further observed that ‘‘forty-five years would be only about a quarter of 185.’’ Beginningwiththis earlyexchange, atheme emerged
overthecourseoftrialcounsel’slengthycross-examination. Perry consistently maintained that there was no ‘‘deal’’ and that a forty-five year sentence was always ‘‘on the table,’’ and trial counsel repeatedly highlighted for the jury Perry’s actual maximum sentencing exposure, the number of serious charges pending against him, and the factthat a sentence offorty-five years was contingent on Perry’s testimony for the state.8When, toward the end oftrial counsel’s cross-examination, Perry continued to deny that he was receiving
a‘‘deal,’’trialcounselobservedthat‘‘therewasadiscussion right out here in the public record, in the open court, about what you would have to do to get this sentence.’’ Trial counsel then discussed with Perry the prosecutor’s statements about his plea agreement at his guilty plea hearing while presenting Perry with and reading aloud from Perry’s guilty plea hearing transcript.9 Trial counsel did not identify for thejury, however, the document he was showing Perry as Perry’s guiltypleahearingtranscript, nordidtrial counsel offer it as an exhibit.
Onredirect examination, theprosecutoraskedPerry: ‘‘Defense attorney asked you ifyou were getting fortyfive years for your truthful cooperation,’’ and Perry agreed. The prosecutor then asked Perry to confirm that the sentence was forty-five years and that there
was ‘‘[n]ot a possibility

. . . that I’m going to recommend any less of that sentence

. . . ?’’ Perry agreed with the prosecutor’s statements and then said: ‘‘Fortyfive years always been on the table. I could of seen if you came with forty-four years, I would have thought that was a deal. Common sense will tell you that fortyfive, forty-five years has been on the table the whole time. That’s not a deal.’’ The prosecutor did not correct Perry’sfalse assertionthatthere wasno deal; she stated that she had no further questions. During summation, trial counsel and the prosecutor commented on Perry’s plea agreement with the state. Trial counsel utilized Perry’s staunch refusal ‘‘to acknowledge he was getting any benefit at all’’ or the extentofhisparticipationintherobberytodemonstrate Perry’s lack of credibility. In particular, trial counsel referred to how, when he presented Perry with the transcript from his plea hearing, in which the prosecutor indicated that he would be sentenced to forty-five years imprisonment for testifying truthfully against the petitioner, Perry continued to refuse to acknowledge the benefit he was receiving.10 During herrebuttal argument, the prosecutor responded that an agreement to
a sentence of forty-five years imprisonment was not much of a benefit in light of Perry’s young age and the fact that he will have to spend the next forty-five years in prison with fellow inmates knowing that he testified against his codefendant. During its final charge to thejury, the court included
aspecialcredibilityinstructionconcerningPerry’stestimony. In relevant part, the court admonished the jury that it should ‘‘carefully scrutinize the testimony of Richmond Perry’’ and ‘‘keep in mind that he may, in his
own mind, be looking for or hoping for some favorable treatment in the sentence or disposition of his own
case. And that therefore he may have such an interest inthe outcome ofthis case that his testimonymayhavebeen colored by that fact. Therefore, then, you must look with particular care at the testimony ofan accomplice and scrutinize it very carefully before you accept it.’’
In his habeas petition, the petitioner alleged thattrial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he failed to offer Perry’s plea hearing transcript as an exhibit. Additionally, the petitioner claimedthatthe prosecutor committed certain improprieties during her case-inchief and closing argument by soliciting and utilizing Perry’s false testimony concerning the nature and existence of his plea agreement. In his return, the respondent, the Commissioner ofCorrection, pleaded thatthe petitioner’s claim ofprosecutorialimproprietywasprocedurally defaulted because it was not raised before the trial court or on appeal. In his reply, the petitioner argued that ‘‘[a]ny alleged procedural default is cured bygoodcause andprejudice,’’ namely, ineffective assistance of trial counsel.11
Atthehabeastrial, thepetitionercalledhistrialcounsel as a witness. Trial counsel recalled that ‘‘Perry insisted that forty-five [years] was on the table and that’s always been on the table,’’ and he agreed that Perry’s testimony in that respect was inaccurate. Trial counselfurtheracknowledgedthat during cross-examinationhe usedPerry’spleahearingtranscriptto refresh Perry’s recollection but he did not offerit as an exhibit,
even though he could have offered it as impeachment evidence orsubstantivelyasaWhelanstatement. 12Trial counsel explained, however, that because he crossexamined Perry extensively on his truthfulness and Perry repeatedly admitted that he lied to the police in his written statements, ‘‘[i]t got to the point where it
was becoming tedious

. . . forthejuryto even hear it.’’
In its memorandum of decision, the habeas court rejected the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and determined that his claim of prosecutorial impropriety was procedurally defaulted. With respecttothe claim ofineffective assistance ofcounsel, the habeas court assumed, arguendo, that trial counsel rendered deficient performance by not offering Perry’s plea hearing transcript as an exhibit. The court further held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), because its ‘‘confidenceinthejury’sverdictremain[ed] highdespite the inaccuracy of Perry’s description of his plea agreement.’’ With respect to the petitioner’s claim that the prosecutor committed certain improprieties by failing to correct Perry’s misrepresentation of his plea agreement, the court held that the claim was procedurally defaulted because ‘‘[t]he petitioner submitted no evidence of any good cause justifying his failure to assert any previously omitted trial misconduct claim at trial or on appeal.’’A
Thepetitionerarguesthattrial counselrenderedineffective assistance when he failed to offer Perry’s plea hearing transcript as an exhibit because the transcript demonstrates that (1) Perry’s plea agreement was contingent on his having testified ‘‘truthfully’’ at the petitioner’s criminal trial; (2) the state’s definition of ‘‘truthfully’’ required Perry to identify the petitioner as the shooter; (3) Perry had a significant incentive to lie and to identifythe petitioner as the shooter attrial; and (4) ‘‘the prosecutor was willing to give the jury the wrong impression, by soliciting and eliciting false testimony and then perpetuating it in summation, about a plea deal that was critical to the key witness’ credibility.’’ The respondent replies that in light of the totality of the evidence before the jury, the petitioner cannot prove there is areasonable probability that but fortrial counsel’s alleged errors the result of the proceeding would have been different. We agree with the respondent.
To succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a petitioner must satisfy the two-pronged test articulatedinStricklandv. Washington, supra, 466U.S. 687. Strickland requires that a petitioner satisfy both
a ‘‘performance prong’’ and a ‘‘prejudice prong.’’ To satisfy the performance prong, ‘‘a [petitioner] must show that counsel’s conduct fell below an objective standardofreasonablenessforcompetentattorneys [as measured by prevailing professional norms].’’ Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, 319 Conn. 548, 555, 126 A.3d 538 (2015), cert. denied sub nom. Semplev. Davis, U.S. , 136 S. Ct. 1676, 194 L. Ed. 2d 801 (2016); Iovieno v. CommissionerofCorrection, 242 Conn. 689, 703, 699 A.2d 1003 (1997). To satisfy the prejudice prong, ‘‘a [petitioner] must show areasonable probabilitythatthe outcome oftheproceedingwouldhavebeen different but for counsel’s errors.’’ Davis v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 555. ‘‘The claim will succeed only ifboth [Strickland] prongs are satisfied.

. . . Itiswellsettledthat [a] reviewing courtcanfindagainst
a petitioner on either ground, whichever is easier.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotationmarks omitted.)Smallv. CommissionerofCorrection, 286 Conn. 707, 713, 946 A.2d 1203, cert. denied sub nom. Small v. Lantz, 555 U.S. 975, 129 S. Ct. 481, 172 L. Ed. 2d 336 (2008).
We are notpersuadedthatthere is areasonableprobability that had the jury been presented with Perry’s plea hearing transcript the outcome of the petitioner’s criminal trial would have been different. As our Supreme Court observed on direct appeal, the state presented ‘‘strong evidence that the [petitioner] had participated inthe robbery.’’ Statev.Arroyo, supra, 292 Conn. 575. The petitioner admitted to the police that he (1) broke open the register with his screwdriver, (2)shared the cash proceeds from the register with Perry, (3) hidthe registerbehindthe dresserinhis and Krick’s bedroom, (4) disposed of the register in a dumpster outside ofhis and Krick’s apartment, and (5) facilitated and participated in the sale of the firearm used during the robberyto shootthe victim. Althoughthe petitioner maintained in his statements to the police that he did not participate in the robbery, the petitioner admitted to Smith and two fellow inmates to being involved in the robbery.13 Finally, the state presented evidence that
a jacket seized from the petitioner and Krick’s apartment, which matched the description ofthe jacket the petitioner admitted to wearing on March 28, 2001, was contaminated with the active ingredient in the tear gas used by the victim to fight off his attackers. Perry, as an admitted participant in the robbery, was
an importantwitness. Trial counsel’s thorough and surgical cross-examination of Perry, however, made the jury abundantly aware of Perry’s motive to lie and to implicate the petitioner in the robbery. Throughout the
course ofcross-examination, trialcounselremindedthe jury of Perry’s original charges, of the charges that remained pending against Perry, of Perry’s maximum sentencing exposure for each ofthose charges as well
as his total maximum sentencing exposure, and of the fact that Perry’s sentencing had been postponed until after he testified against the petitioner. Trial counsel also reviewed Perry’s prior inconsistent statements with him in detail, and Perry admitted on numerous occasions that he had lied to the police in all of his written statements. Trial counsel further demonstrated that Perry’s lies in his written statements were often designed either to establish that he was not present for the robbery or, when he became aware that physical evidence placed him in the midst of the robbery, to mitigate his role in the robbery by suggesting that he
was present for the robbery by happenstance, not as
an active participant.
The petitioner argues that ‘‘simply because [trial counsel] cross-examined Perry extensively regarding the plea deal does not mean that he was effective in showing that Perry was untruthful.’’ We disagree. It is clear from thejury’s verdict that thejury did not credit all of Perry’s testimony. Perry insisted at trial that the petitioner shot the victim. Nevertheless, thejury found the petitioner not guilty of robbery in the first degree and murder, the only counts in which the petitioner
was charged with either personally possessing the firearm used in the robbery or shooting the victim. See footnote 4 of this opinion. Therefore, we conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal as to his claim of ineffective assistance ofcounselthatwas based ontrial counsel’s failure to offer Perry’s pleahearing transcriptas an exhibit.
B
Thepetitioner’ssecondclaimconcerningPerry’splea agreementwiththe state isthattheprosecutorcommitted certain improprieties when she (1) solicited false testimonyfromPerryondirectexamination, (2)permitted Perry’s false testimony to stand on cross-examination, and (3) ‘‘made statements and suggested inferences to the jury that were false and in which she emphasizedPerry’s falsetestimony.’’ Thepetitioner claims that the habeas court erred when it concluded that this claim was procedurally defaulted. The petitionercontendsthathesatisfiedthecauseandprejudice standard byproving that ‘‘trial counsel’s failure to raise the issue of prosecutorial [impropriety] at trial or at sentencing, and particularly by failing to mark Perry’s plea hearing transcript as either a full trial exhibit or
an exhibit for [identification] constituted ineffective assistance of counsel

. . . .’’ The respondent argues that because the habeas court rejected the petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the habeas courtproperlyfoundthatthe petitionerfailedto satisfy the cause and prejudice standard. We agree with the respondent. ‘‘We begin our analysis by setting forth the appropriate standard of review on appeal. Our review of a determination of the application of procedural default involves a question of law over which our review is plenary.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Wilcoxv. Commissioner ofCorrection, 162 Conn. App. 730, 740, 129 A.3d 796 (2016).
Under the procedural default doctrine, ‘‘a claimant may not raise, in a collateral proceeding, claims that he could have made at trial or on direct appeal in the original proceeding,’’ unless he can prove that his default by failure to do so should be excused. Hinds

v. Commissioner of Correction, 151 Conn. App. 837, 852, 97 A.3d 986 (2014), aff’d, 321 Conn. 56, 136 A.3d 596 (2016). ‘‘When a respondent seeks to raise an affirmative defense ofprocedural default, the rules ofpractice require that he or she must file a return to the habeas petition ‘alleg[ing] any facts in support of any claim of procedural default

. . . or any other claim that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.’ Practice Book § 23-30 (b). ‘If the return alleges any defense or claim that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, and such allegations are not put in dispute by the petition, the petitioner shall file a reply.’ Practice Book § 23-31 (a). ‘The reply shall allege any facts and assert any
cause and prejudice claimed to permit review of any issue despite any claimed procedural default.’ Practice Book § 23-31 (c).’’Johnsonv. CommissionerofCorrection, 285 Conn. 556, 567, 941 A.2d 248 (2008). ‘‘The cause and prejudice standard [ofreviewability]is designed to prevent full review of issues in habeas corpus proceedings that counsel did not raise at trial
or on appeal for reasons of tactics, [inadvertence] or ignorance

. . . . In order to satisfy this standard, the [habeas] petitioner must demonstrate both good cause for failing to raise a claim at trial or on direct appeal and actual prejudice from the underlying impropriety.

. . . [T]he existence of cause for a procedural default must ordinarily turn on whether the [petitioner] can showthatsome objective factorexternaltothe defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the [s]tate’s procedural rule.

. . . ‘‘With respect to the actual prejudice prong, [t]he habeas petitionermust show not merelythatthe errors at

. . . trial created the possibility of prejudice, but thattheyworkedtohisactualandsubstantialdisadvantage, infectinghisentiretrialwitherrorofconstitutional dimensions.

. . . Such a showing of pervasive actual prejudice can hardly be thought to constitute anything other than a showing that the prisoner was denied fundamental fairness at trial.

. . . [A] habeas petitioner’s showing of ineffective assistance of counsel demonstrates such actual prejudice.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasisinoriginal; internalquotationmarks omitted.) Wilcox v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 162 Conn. App. 740–41; see also Johnson v. Commissioner ofCorrection, supra, 285 Conn. 567–68.
Inthe present case, to satisfythe cause andprejudice standard, the petitioner first would have to establish thattrial counsel rendered ineffective assistance bynot raising a claim of prosecutorial impropriety at trial or preserving the issue for appeal. To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, the petitioner would have to establish that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome ofthepetitioner’strialwouldhavebeendifferent but for trial counsel’s error. See Davis v. Commissioner ofCorrection, supra, 319 Conn. 555. That is, the petitioner would have to establish that had a claim of prosecutorial impropriety been raised by trial counsel,
a court would have concluded that a prosecutorial impropriety occurred and that it deprived him of his right to a fair trial. See State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23, 32, 917 A.2d 978 (2007).
On the basis of our review ofthe record, we cannot conclude that the habeas court erred in finding thatthe petitioner’s prosecutorial impropriety claim was procedurally defaulted. As we discussed in part I A of this opinion, the state presented ‘‘strong evidence that the [petitioner] had participated in the robbery.’’ State v. Arroyo, supra, 292 Conn. 575. Trial counsel thoroughly cross-examined Perry concerning his motive to lie to avoidasignificantlylongersentenceandadditionalconvictions. Thejury’s verdict furtherreveals thatthejury, at the very least, did not credit Perry’s testimony that thepetitionerpossessedthefirearmusedintherobberyor shot the victim. Accordingly, because the petitioner failed to prove that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistancebynotraisingaclaimofprosecutorialimpropriety before the trial court or by failing to preserve this issue for appeal, he has failed to satisfy the cause and prejudice standard. Therefore, we conclude that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal as to his claim of prosecutorial impropriety.
II
Thepetitionernextclaimsthatthe habeas court erroneously concluded that trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance when he failed to consult with experts about whether the tear gas found on the petitioner’s jacket was the result of a secondary transfer14 fromtheregisterandto callanexperttotestifyconcerning that secondary transfer theory.15 The respondent argues that the habeas court properly concluded that trial counsel rendered effective assistance becausetrial counsel testified that he consulted with several experts aboutthe secondarytransfertheory, butnone provided
an opinion that was helpful to the defense. We agree with the respondent.
At the petitioner’s criminal trial, Dr. Jack Hubball, a criminalistinthe chemistrysection ofthe state forensic laboratory, testified that on one of the jackets officers seized from the petitioner and Krick’s apartment he located ‘‘two [reddish brown] droplet-like stains on the upper left hand portion’’ of the jacket. Hubball tested the chemical makeup ofthose droplets and determined that they contained traces of a chemical compound known as CS, which was the active ingredient in the tear gas canister found near the victim’s body. Hubball testified that he believed that the droplets were the result ofthe chemical compoundbeingsprayed directly onto the jacket and were not the result of a secondary transfer from another object.
Atthehabeastrial,thepetitionercalledKamranLoghman, an expert on tear gas, and trial counsel as witnesses. Loghman did not dispute Hubball’s finding that there was CS on the petitioner’sjacket and agreed that CS was an active ingredient in the brand of tear gas found nearthe victim’s body. Instead, Loghman opined that because of the physical and chemical properties of CS, it would not ‘‘cause any kind of shape on any article of clothing’’ and ‘‘[i]t doesn’t discolor fabrics.’’ As a result, Loghman concluded that ‘‘something else that got saturated and contaminated came into contact with this pullover [jacket] and passed on the tear gas.’’ He acknowledged, however, that he could not determine when that secondary transfer occurred and that the transfer could have happened inside the package store.Trial counsel testified that it was important to the defense to neutralize the tear gas evidence because it
was the only physical evidence that placed the petitioner in the package store. As a result, he consulted with several experts on tear gas, including Loghman. Loghman, in particular, confirmed that the substance
on the jacket was CS and provided referrals to other experts who might help him address the issues. Although trial counsel did not recall asking Loghman specifically about the secondary transfer theory,16 he recalled asking other experts whether the CS on the jacket was a smear or a droplet and ‘‘what opinion we might get as to getting a contact transfer from a cash register.’’ Trial counsel testified that none of these experts rendered a positive or helpful opinion, and, therefore, he decided not to call an expert witness to rebut Hubball’s testimony.
The habeas court concludedthatthe petitionerfailed to establishthattrial counsel rendered deficientperformance by not calling an expert witness on tear gas because trial counsel ‘‘made diligent efforts to locate and consult with an expert such as Loghman

. . . but
none [ofthe experts he contacted] were willing to provide the defense with useful information.’’17
‘‘Paramount to the effective assistance of counsel is the obligation by the attorney to investigate all surrounding circumstances of the case and to explore all
avenues that may potentially lead to facts relevant to the defense of the case.’’ Walton v. Commissioner of Correction, 57 Conn. App. 511, 521, 749 A.2d 666, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 913, 759 A.2d 509 (2000). ‘‘We are mindful that, under certain circumstances, the failure to use any expert can result in a determination that a criminal defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Peruccio v. Commissioner of Correction, 107 Conn. App. 66, 76, 943 A.2d 1143, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 920, 951 A.2d 569 (2008). Nevertheless, ‘‘the question of whether to call
an expert witness always is a strategic decision.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 319 Conn. 623, 636 n.7, 126A.3d 558 (2015). ‘‘[S]trategic choices made after thorough investigation oflaw and facts relevant to plausible options are virtually unchallengeable; [but] strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.’’ (Internalquotationmarks omitted.) Gainesv. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664, 680, 51 A.3d 948 (2012).
In the present case, the habeas court credited trial counsel’s testimony that he consulted with multiple experts aboutthepossibilitythatthe CS onthepetitioner’sjacket was the result of a secondary transfer from the register, but none of those experts provided opin-ions that were helpful to the defense. As a result, trial counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to retain an expert witness for trial. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the habeas court erred in denying the petitioner’s claim.
The petitioner nevertheless contends that ‘‘[t]he habeas court’s findings regarding [trial counsel’s] effortswere clearlyerroneous’’ because ‘‘[trial counsel]
neveraskedthe criticalquestionaboutsecondarytransfer’’ when speaking to potential expert witnesses. Instead, the petitioner states that trial counsel erroneously ‘‘focused on whether the marks were ‘droplets

or smears,’ ’’ which Loghman testified was irrelevant because CS does not ‘‘cause any kind of shape on any article of clothing’’ and ‘‘[i]t doesn’t discolor fabrics.’’
As previously stated, however, trial counsel testified at the habeas trial that when speaking with experts on tear gas he asked the experts both whether the CS on thejacket was a smear or a droplet and ‘‘what opinion
we might get as to getting a contact transfer from a cash register.’’ Although the petitioner’s expert witness might contendthatthe issue ofwhetherthe stains were
smears or droplets is a red herring, the critical aspect of trial counsel’s testimony was that he asked experts about the secondary transfer theory. None of these experts was willing to give him a favorable opinion on that theory. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the habeas court’s finding that trial counsel made diligent efforts to locate an expert on the secondary transfer issue was clearly erroneous. Therefore, we conclude thatthe habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal as to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that was based on trial counsel’s failure to call a tear gas expert at trial.
III
The petitioner’s final claim is that the habeas court erroneously concludedthattrial counsel did not render ineffective assistance whenhe ‘‘failedto introducephotographs or other evidence of the physical layout of [Krick’s] apartment’’ because they would have ‘‘buttress[ed] thecredibilityofthepetitioner’salibiwitness,’’ Marcel Bartelle. The respondent argues thatthe habeas courtproperlyrejectedthepetitioner’s claim ofineffective assistance of counsel because trial counsel made
a reasonable tactical decision not to introduce those photographs and potentially weaken the alibi witness’ testimony. We agree with the respondent.
The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. In his first and second written statements to the police, the petitioner stated that he was home with Krick on the evening of March 28, 2001, the night of the robbery. He admitted in both statements, however, that Perry came to Krick’s apartment at one point thatnight with a black man, identified at the habeas trial
as Darcel Moody, and the register, which he helped Perry carry into Krick’s apartment, open with a screwdriver, and hide behind the dresser. In his third written statement, the petitioner claimed to have been home the entire evening of March 28, 2001, with Krick and Bartelle. The petitioner continued to acknowledge that Perry came by his apartment with Moody andthe register after the robbery and that he helped Perry carry in, open, and hide the register.
Atthepetitioner’scriminaltrial, Bartelletestifiedthat he went to the petitioner and Krick’s apartment after work, between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Bartelle testified that when he arrived the petitioner was alone and that theyremainedaloneuntilapproximately9:30p.m. when Perry arrived. The reason Perry came over, Bartelle explained, was that he wanted to purchase some crack cocaine. Bartelle testified that Perry remained briefly at the apartment to find out what Bartelle wanted to purchase and to pick it up. Bartelle stated that on the two brief occasions Perry was at Krick’s apartment, Perry was alone, and that he never saw Perry carry anything into the apartment, aside from the crack cocaine. Bartelle stated that Krick returned home at approximately 11 p.m. and asked him to leave, which he did. Bartelle maintained that between the time he arrived at the apartment and the time he left the apartmentthepetitionerneverlefthispresenceinthekitchen for more than two or three minutes. Bartelle testified that, as a result, ifthe petitioner had been prying open
aregisterwhile he was atthe apartment, he wouldhave beenawareofit, buthedidnotsee orhearthepetitioner carry in or pry open a register.
At the habeas trial, the petitioner asked trial counsel why he did not introduce photographs ofKrick’s apartment for the purpose of explaining why Bartelle might nothave seen Perry come to the apartmentwith Moody if Moody had remained standing at the front door to the apartment. Trial counsel responded that he did not recall why he did not introduce photographs for that particular purpose.18 The habeas court concluded that trialcounseldidnotrenderineffective assistancebynot introducing evidence of the physical layout of Krick’s apartment to explain why Bartelle did not see anyone with Perry. The habeas court reasoned that ‘‘even an innocuous errorbyBartelle as to who arrived at Krick’s condominium when, and with whom, could reflect badly on Bartelle as a witness. Rather than appear to concede the likelihood that Perry had a companion when he came to Krick’s place, [trial counsel] elected to present the alibi defense contained in Bartelle’s version of these events unsullied by inconsistency or mistake.’’
We agree with the habeas court that the petitioner failedto establishthattrialcounselrenderedineffectiveassistance by not introducing evidence of the physical layout ofKrick’s apartment to explain why Bartelle did not see Moody. We have recognized repeatedly that because of the difficulties inherent in evaluating an attorney’s performance in hindsight, ‘‘a court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; that is, the [petitioner] must overcome the presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.

. . . [C]ounsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.’’ (Internalquotationmarks omitted.)Hendersonv. Commissioner ofCorrection, 104 Conn. App. 557, 572, 935 A.2d 162 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 911, 943 A.2d 470 (2008). The petitioner failed to overcome this presumption in the present case. Bartelle’s testimony was inconsistent with the petitioner’s statements in several respects. We agree with the habeas court that it was
a reasonable tactical decision for trial counsel not to emphasize further the inconsistency concerning Moody’s presence at Krick’s apartment on March 28, 2001 by introducing evidence ofthe apartment’s layout in an attempt to explain why Bartelle might not have
seen Moody. Therefore, we conclude thatthe habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal as to his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that was based on trial counsel’s failure to introduce evidence of the layout of Krick’s apartment to explain why Bartelle might not have
seen Moody.
The appeal is dismissed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 Police officers, with the assistance ofthe petitioner, subsequentlyrecovered the firearm from Cruz.

2 In his first two written statements to the police, the petitioner used an alias, Juan Roman.

3 The petitioner’s alibi witness at trial, Marcel Bartelle, is married.

4 With respect to the charge of murder, the state alleged that ‘‘Reynaldo Arroyo with intent to cause the death ofanotherperson did cause the death of such person, namely, Edmund Caruso, by use of a firearm

. . . .’’ With respect to the charge of robbery in the first degree, the state alleged that the petitioner ‘‘did commit a robbery of Edmund Caruso, and in the course ofthe commissionofthe robbery, ReynaldoArroyowas armedwith adeadly weapon, to wit: a nine millimeter pistol

. . . .’’ Conversely, with respect to the charge offelony murder, the state alleged that ‘‘ReynaldoArroyo and Richmond Perrydid commit arobbery [ofMike’s Package Store] [a]nd in the course of and in furtherance of such crime, Reynaldo Arroyo or another participant, to wit, Richmond Perry, did cause the death of a person other than one of the participants, namely, Edmund Caruso

. . . .’’ With respect to the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery, the state allegedthat ‘‘ReynaldoArroyowithintentthat conductconstituting [robbery in the first degree] be performed

. . . did agree with another person, namely, Richard Perry, to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct

. . . . In pursuance ofsuch conspiracy, Reynaldo Arroyo and Richmond Perry committed one or more overt acts

. . . .’’ The overt acts listed all alleged joint conduct by the petitioner and Perry, e.g., ‘‘Reynaldo Arroyo and Richmond Perry did enter such store armed with a weapon, towit, a nine millimeter handgun.’’

5 The prosecutor also explained that Perry had given several statements and that, ‘‘in essence, he admits in at least one of his statements that was given April 10th that he was at the robbery where Mr. Caruso was killed. And he admits that he was at the package store during the robbery and that Mr. Caruso was killed as aresult ofthat.’’ In each ofthe statementsprovided by Perry, however, he implicated someone otherthan himself, including the petitioner, as the shooter.

6 In Perry’s last written statement, he admitted to being present for the robbery, but he identified the petitioner as the instigator ofthe robbery and the shooter.

7 The violation of probation was unrelated to the robbery information.

8 Forexample, trial counsel engagedinthe following colloquieswithPerry concerning his motive to testify to obtain a lower sentence: ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: So, you’re sitting here today telling us that you have pled guilty to robbery [in the] first degree, felony murder, and agree to a sentence of forty-five years, which is no deal even though you can get 180, but you didn’t commit a robbery, right? That’s what you’re telling us? ‘‘[Perry]: I was in the store with [the petitioner]; that’s what made me guilty for pushing the dude that [the petitioner] shot the dude, so that’s why I’m pleading guilty.

*** ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: Okay. Howmanylieshavewe gotsofarinthis statement, Mr. Perry? ‘‘[Perry]: I don’t know. I told you in four statements I lied about it. But it’s no reason for me to lie about it now because what’s the reason for me to lie about it? I got forty-five years on mine, so what’s the reason for me to lie about it? ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: Forty-five years when you could get 185, Mr. Perry— ‘‘[Perry]: What is forty-five

. . . ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: —in many people’s minds. ‘‘[Perry]: It’s no reason for me to lie about it

. . . . ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: And that’s the point, you didn’t help him do anything because you were innocent, you are completely innocent of anything— ‘‘[Perry]: Nn. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: —in the store, except pushing that old man with your hands, like this

. . . and driving the car, I guess, back, is that it, back to the apartment, that’s what you’re guilty of, right? ‘‘[Perry]: Yep. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: And that’s why you plead to a set, to two offenses for which you’re getting forty-five years for pushing a man and driving a car back after a committed crime that you didn’t even know it was going to happen, right? ‘‘[Perry]: Yep. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: But of course we know it has nothing to do with 185 years? ‘‘[Perry]: It was always forty-five years on the table.

*** ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: And of course, you wouldn’t lie in court, is that what you’re trying to get us to understand? ‘‘[Perry]:

. . . I wouldn’t be on the stand and just come on the stand on my own just to tell some lies on the statement. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: You’re on the stand. ‘‘[Perry]: I mean on the stand. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: Well, you’re getting, you’re getting a plea bargain, aren’t you? ‘‘[Perry]: It’s not a plea bargain. It always been forty-five years on the table, so. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: And how do you think it got to be the forty-five years
on the table, that it just appeared for this type of crime that has been committed. The state just out of the goodness of their hearts offered you forty-five years for nothing? ‘‘[Perry]: Well, you have to ask my lawyer that. He came to me with that,

so. You have to ask him that.

*** ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: And you are not testifying here today that you didn’t know that ifyou reneged on your promise and did not testify as set out for you, that there would be no agreed recommendation and the state would be asking for a much higher sentence at the time you got sentenced. You’re not testifying to that are you?‘‘[Perry]: Once again, I’ve been had forty-five years on the table, and that’s all I’ve been hearing.’’

9 In relevant part, the following exchange occurred while trial counsel presented Perry with his plea hearing transcript: ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: Let me see if this refreshes you of your recollection. This part righthere, read that. Whatyou had to do in orderto get the benefit of this, the offer from the prosecutor of forty-five years, is to testify in a truthfulmanneronlyregarding [thepetitioner’s] participationintherobbery, that’s correct, isn’t it? ‘‘[Perry]: She added on to it, but I knew forty-five years was on the table. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: But you agree that’s what was said, right? ‘‘[Perry]: That’s on the paper. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: Okay. And that if you should renege on that promise and decide not to do that, there is no agreed recommendation and the state would ask for a much higher sentence at that time, isn’t that correct? ‘‘[Perry]: I, she never told me that part. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: But it was said, wasn’t it? ‘‘[Perry]: No, it was not said. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: Well, take a look. ‘‘[Perry]: It’s on the paper, but it was never said. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: Well, you were standing in open court, weren’t you? ‘‘[Perry]: That was never said to me. ‘‘[Trial Counsel]: I see. But it is on the paper, right? ‘‘[Perry]: It’s on paper. But no matter what, I have forty-five years on the table, and I was gonna take the stand anyway.’’

10 Trial counsel argued in relevant part: ‘‘And when I presented him with

a transcript, the transcript ofhis plea hearing where he pled guilty and had him read it, read where he, where the state’s attorney indicated that he was getting this sentence to testify truthfully but against the defendant Arroyo only. He got a plea bargain deal to testify against Reynaldo Arroyo

. . . .’’

11 The petitioner also argued in his reply that the procedural default was cured by the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel in failing to raise a claimofprosecutorialimproprietyonappeal. Attheconclusionofthehabeas trial, however, the petitioner withdrew his claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

12 See State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743, 753, 513 A.2d 86 (allowing the substantiveuse ofpriorwritteninconsistentstatements, signedbydeclarant, who haspersonal knowledge offacts stated, when declaranttestifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S. Ct. 597, 93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-5 (1).

13 Police officers interviewed the petitioner after Smithprovided awritten statement concerning his conversations with the petitioner about the robbery to see if the petitioner thought the statement was accurate. The petitioner told the police officers that it was accurate except that he did not tell Smith that he was personally involved in the robbery. Instead, he stated that duringhis conversationwith Smith, he was ‘‘imagining’’ what occurred insidethepackage store duringtherobberyandthatthatmusthave confused Smith about his involvement in the robbery. (Emphasis added.)

14 The parties and the witnesses in the present case have used both the terms ‘‘secondarytransfer’’ and ‘‘contact transfer’’ to describe the phenomenon of tear gas transferring from the register onto the petitioner’s jacket. Forconsistency, werefertothisphenomenonas ‘‘secondarytransfer’’unless

we quote a witness’ testimony.

15 The petitioner also claims that the habeas court ‘‘incorrectly precluded the petitionerfrom recalling [his habeas expert witness] [Kamran] Loghman to rebut’’ trial counsel’s testimony that ‘‘he had consulted with Loghman priorto the criminaltrial.’’ The respondent argues thatthe petitioner’s claim is unreviewable because he did not raise it in his petition for certification to appeal. We agree with the respondent. ‘‘This court has determined that apetitioner cannot demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying a petition for certification to appeal if the issue that the petitioner later raises on appeal was never presented to, or decided by, the habeas court.

. . . Under such circumstances, a review ofthe petitioner’s claims would amount to an ambuscade ofthe [habeas] judge.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Tutson v. CommissionerofCorrection, 144 Conn. App. 203, 217, 72 A.3d 1162, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 928, 78 A.3d 145 (2013). Neitherthe petition for certificationto appeal northe petitioner’s application for a waiver of fees, costs and expenses include an evidentiary claim that the court erred in precluding him from recalling Loghman to testify asto whether trial counsel contacted him. In his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner listed five grounds, only one of which relates to the expert witness issue: ‘‘5. Whether the court erred in denying the petition based on its finding that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to call

ateargas expert?’’ The language inthis fifthground forappeal is insufficient to raise distinctly, and thereby preserve, the petitioner’s evidentiary claim. See Foote v. Commissioner ofCorrection, 151 Conn. App. 559, 571, 96 A.3d 587 ( Keller, J ., concurring) (‘‘well settled in our decisional law is that a petitioneris unable to demonstrate that ahabeas court abused its discretion in denying a petition for certification to appeal on the basis of questions that were not raised distinctly before the habeas court at the time that it considered the petition for certification to appeal’’), cert. denied, 314 Conn. 929, 102 A.3d 709 (2014); accord Melendez v. Commissioner ofCorrection, 141 Conn. App. 836, 841, 62 A.3d 629, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 921, 77 A.3d 143 (2013); Campbell v. Commissioner ofCorrection, 132 Conn. App. 263, 267, 31 A.3d 1182 (2011). Accordingly, we decline to review it for the first time on appeal.

16 Trial counsel explained that ifhe had discussed the secondary transfer theory with Loghman, he would have noted that discussion in his notes, which he did not.
17 In its memorandum ofdecision, the court found that trial counsel ‘‘consulted with Loghman, ‘although Mr. Loghman forgot about that consultation.’ ’’ (Emphasis in original.) The petitioner claims that ‘‘[t]he habeas court committed clear error when it concluded that [trial counsel] had consulted with Loghman ‘although Loghman forgot about the consultation.’ ’’ We disagree with the petitionerto the extent that he argues that the habeas court’s finding that trial counsel consulted with Loghman was clearly erroneous because trial counsel testified that he consulted with Loghman. We agree with the petitioner, however, that the habeas court’s finding that ‘‘Loghman forgot about the consultation’’ was clearly erroneous. At the habeas trial, the petitioner first called Loghman to testify. After Loghman’s testimony, the petitioner called trial counsel, who unexpectedly testified that Loghman was one of the experts he consulted. The next day, the petitionersoughtto recallLoghmantelephonicallyas awitness, eventhough he had been released as a witness and left the state. Habeas counsel represented that Loghman ‘‘had no recollection oftalking to [trial counsel]’’ and that Loghman’s firm had a strict policy about not having ‘‘casual conversations without being retained.’’ The habeas court did not permit habeas counsel, however,torecallLoghman. Seefootnote 15ofthisopinion.Accordingly, the habeas court’s findingthatLoghman forgot abouthis conversation with trial counsel is not supported by any evidence in the record. See State

v. Duntz, 223 Conn. 207, 236, 613 A.2d 224 (1992) (statements made by attorneys not facts in evidence; finder of fact may not properly consider them as evidence); Tevolini v. Tevolini, 66 Conn. App. 16, 26, 783 A.2d 1157 (2001) (‘‘representations of counsel are not, legally speaking, evidence’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); see also Anderson v. Commissioner ofCorrection, 114 Conn. App. 778, 784, 971 A.2d 766 (habeas court’s factual findingsreviewedunderclearlyerroneous standard), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 915, 979 A.2d 488 (2009).

18 Trial counsel didintroduce into evidence severalphotographs ofKrick’s apartment at trial for other purposes.