Case Name: BENITO LUGO v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 2005-06-28
Citations: 89 Conn. App. 873
Docket Number: AC 25512
Parties: BENITO LUGO v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Appellate Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 873–874

Head Matter:
BENITO LUGO v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
(AC 25512)
Bishop, DiPentima and McLachlan, Js.
Submitted on briefs April 29
officially released June 28, 2005
Michael A. D’Onofrio, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner).
James E. Thomas, state’s attorney, Melissa L. Streelo, deputy assistant state’s attorney, and Robin Cutuli, assistant state’s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent).

Opinion:
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Benito Lugo, appeals following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal.
On October 24, 1995, the petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, and one count of conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-48 and 53a-54a. He thereafter was sentenced to a total effective term of forty years incarceration. On December 10, 2001, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus that alleged ineffective assistance on the part of his trial counsel. Following a one day trial at which the petitioner was the only witness, the court concluded that the petitioner had not satisfied his burden of proving either deficient performance on the part of his counsel or prejudice resulting therefrom. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984); Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 218 Conn. 403, 424, 589 A.2d 1214 (1991). Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court subsequently denied the petition for certification to appeal.
After a careful review of the record and briefs, we conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues raised are debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner or that the questions raised deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431-32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991); Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).
The appeal is dismissed.