Pittman v. Commissioner of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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. ****************************************************** JOHN PITTMAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 20073) Foti, Landau and Dranginis, Js. Submitted on briefs September 12 officially released November 13, 2001 Counsel Norman A. Pattis, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). James E. Thomas, state s attorney, and Jo Anne Sulik, assistant state s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, John Pittman, appeals from the judgment dismissing his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that he was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court. The petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes ยง 53a-54a (a) and sentenced to sixty years imprisonment. Our Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in State v. Pittman, 209 Conn. 596, 553 A.2d 155 (1989). The habeas court denied the petitioner s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and, on the granting of certification, the petition appealed to this court. The petitioner claims that his attorney discussed presenting a demonstration to the jury using a mannequin, the victim s clothing and knives similar to those owned by the petitioner. No such demonstration was conducted. The habeas court, in its memorandum of decision, concluded that the petitioner failed to prove that the use of a mannequin would have affected the result of the trial or that trial counsel s performance prejudiced the petitioner. Our standard of review in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging the effective assistance of trial counsel is well settled. Although a habeas court s findings of fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard of review . . . [w]hether the representation a defendant received at trial was constitutionally inadequate is a mixed question of law and fact. . . . As such, that question requires plenary review by this court unfettered by the clearly erroneous standard. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 737 38, 779 A.2d 156 (2001). [T]o prevail on a constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, [the petitioner] must establish both (1) deficient performance, and (2) actual prejudice. . . . To prove that his counsel s performance was deficient, the petitioner must demonstrate that counsel s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. . . . Furthermore, the petitioner must establish not only that his counsel s performance was deficient, but that as a result thereof he suffered actual prejudice, namely, that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 738. On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that the habeas court properly determined that the petitioner failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance under the Strickland test. The judgment is affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
