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

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.

******************************************************
CRAIG WILSON v. COMMISSIONER

OF CORRECTION

(AC 34400)

DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Bear, Js.

Submitted on briefs March 14—officially released May 6, 2014

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of

Tolland, Newson, J.)

Kinga A. Kostaniak, assigned counsel, filed a brief

for the appellant (petitioner).

John C. Smriga, state’s attorney, and Nancy L. Chupak and Nicholas J. Bove, Jr., senior assistant state’s

attorneys, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Craig Wilson, appeals

following the denial of his petition for certification to

appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying

his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner

claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion

in denying certification to appeal, (2) improperly determined that his trial counsel, Attorney Jeffrey LaPierre,

provided effective assistance, and (3) improperly determined that his appellate counsel, Attorney Norman A.

Pattis and Attorney Kimberly Coleman,1 provided effective assistance. Because we conclude that the court

properly denied certification to appeal, we dismiss

this appeal.

A jury found the petitioner guilty of six narcotics

related offenses. See State v. Wilson, 111 Conn. App.

614, 616, 960 A.2d 1056 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn.

917, 966 A.2d 234 (2009). This court affirmed the conviction, and our Supreme Court denied certification to

appeal. Id. On September 29, 2011, the petitioner filed

a three count amended petition for a writ of habeas

corpus. In count one, he alleged that LaPierre provided

ineffective assistance of trial counsel in a variety of

ways. In count two, the petitioner claimed that Pattis

provided ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. In

count three, the petitioner set forth a claim of prosecutorial impropriety, namely, that the prosecutor had

failed to disclose evidence during the criminal trial. At

the one day habeas trial, Pattis, LaPierre, the petitioner,

Coleman, and Senior Assistant State’s Attorney Brian

Kennedy, the prosecutor in the underlying criminal

trial, testified.

On January 30, 2012, the court issued a memorandum

of decision denying the habeas petition. It determined

that the petitioner had raised three claims against LaPierre: First, he failed to conduct an adequate investigation

into various aspects of the case, specifically, with

respect to potential witnesses and defenses; second, he

failed to advise the petitioner adequately regarding plea

negotiations, the evidence possessed by the state and

available defenses; and third, he failed to present exculpatory evidence and witnesses. In rejecting these

claims, the court credited the testimony of LaPierre

that he had made significant investigatory efforts with

respect to the facts of the case and the petitioner’s

claim of actual innocence. It also found that LaPierre

had engaged in pretrial negotiations with the prosecutor, but that the petitioner had rejected the state’s offer

of a sentence of five years imprisonment2 because he

claimed that he was innocent. The court also accepted

LaPierre’s explanation of the strategic decisions made

during the course of the petitioner’s criminal trial. It

concluded that LaPierre’s performance was not deficient, and therefore it did not address the issue of prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687,
104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); Gregory v.

Commissioner of Correction, 111 Conn. App. 430, 434,

959 A.2d 633 (2008), cert. denied, 290 Conn. 906, 962

A.2d 794 (2009).

The court then summarized the petitioner’s allegations in count two of the habeas petition as ‘‘generalized

claims that appellate counsel failed to raise all possible

issues, failed to adequately research all issues and failed

to adequately brief the claims and issues for appeal.’’

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) It credited the testimony of Pattis and Coleman that they reviewed the

record, conducted legal research and appealed three

issues that they believed presented the best opportunity

to prevail. Ultimately, the court determined that the

petitioner’s claims regarding the performance of his

appellate counsel ‘‘lack[ed] any merit whatsoever.’’3

Finally, the court concluded that the petitioner’s

claim of prosecutorial impropriety was abandoned by

the petitioner. ‘‘The petitioner failed to present any evidence . . . on the subject of the existence of any exculpatory evidence or other reports that the state’s

attorney is supposed to have failed to turn over to his

trial counsel.’’ The court denied the petition for a writ

of habeas corpus, and, on February 14, 2014, it denied

the petition for certification to appeal. This appeal

followed.

‘‘Faced with a habeas court’s denial of a petition for

certification to appeal, a petitioner can obtain appellate

review of the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus

only by satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated by

our Supreme Court in Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn.

178, 640 A.2d 601 (1994), and adopted in Simms v.

Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994). First,

he must demonstrate that the denial of his petition for

certification constituted an abuse of discretion. . . .

To prove an abuse of discretion, the petitioner must

demonstrate that the [resolution of the underlying claim

involves issues that] are debatable among jurists 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. . . . Second, if the petitioner can show an abuse of discretion,

he must then prove that the decision of the habeas

court should be reversed on the merits. . . . In

determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be given in

favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling . . . [and]

[r]eversal is required only where an abuse of discretion

is manifest or where injustice appears to have been

done.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks

omitted.) Perry v. Commissioner of Correction, 131

Conn. App. 792, 795–96, 28 A.3d 1015, cert. denied, 303

Conn. 913, 32 A.3d 966 (2011).

After a careful review of the record and briefs, we

conclude that the petitioner has failed to sustain his
substantial burden of establishing that the habeas court

abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal.

See Sadler v. Commissioner of Correction, 132 Conn.

App. 335, 338, 31 A.3d 833 (2011), cert. denied, 304

Conn. 912, 40 A.3d 318 (2012). The arguments set forth

in the petitioner’s brief have not shown that the issues

raised on appeal are debatable among jurists of reason,

that they could be resolved in a different manner or

that they deserve encouragement to proceed further.

See Skelly v. Commissioner of Correction, 127 Conn.

App. 721, 723, 14 A.3d 1080 (2011).

The appeal is dismissed.

1 We note that Coleman is not mentioned in the operative petition for a

writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court’s memorandum of decision interpreted the petition to include Coleman in the claims of ineffective assistance

of appellate counsel, as do the parties’ appellate briefs. We follow this path

in our opinion.

2 Following the jury’s verdict of guilty, the court sentenced the petitioner

to a total effective term ofthirty years imprisonment, suspended aftertwentysix years, followed by five years probation.

3 The habeas court did not reach the issue of whether the petitioner

suffered any prejudice as a result of the performance of appellate counsel.