Channer 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. ****************************************************** CLAUDIOUS W. CHANNER v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 19507) Foti, Mihalakos and Dupont, Js. Submitted on briefs November 1 officially released November 27, 2001 Counsel Alan E. Dillon, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). James E. Thomas, state s attorney, and Eileen F. McCarthy and George K. Ferko, assistant state s attorneys, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Claudious W. Channer, appeals following the denial by the habeas court of his petition for certification to appeal from the court s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. After a review of the record and briefs, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing that he has been denied a state or federal constitutional right and, further, has failed to sustain his burden of persuasion that the denial of certification to appeal was a clear abuse of discretion or that an injustice has been done. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994); Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 189, 640 A.2d 601 (1994); Walker v. Commissioner of Correction, 38 Conn. App. 99, 100, 659 A.2d 195, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 100 (1995); see also Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431 32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991). The court s dismissal of the petitioner s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was predicated on a factual review of the petitioner s claim that he was denied the effective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and a determination that the petitioner had failed to rebut the strong presumption that counsels conduct [fell] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance . . . . Safford v. Warden, 223 Conn. 180, 193, 612 A.2d 1161 (1992). The petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. See State v. Channer, 28 Conn. App. 161, 612 A.2d 95, cert. denied, 223 Conn. 921, 614 A.2d 826 (1992). As to his trial counsel, the petitioner claimed that counsel failed to investigate, interview and call certain witnesses, to file a discovery motion, to reserve a motion for a new trial,1 to file a motion for a speedy trial, to object to the filing of a substitute information and to guarantee an agreement that the petitioner claims he had reached with the state. Following a hearing and review of the trial transcript, the habeas court concluded in a thorough and well reasoned memorandum of decision that the record did not support some of the petitioner s claims, the petitioner offered no evidence in support of other claims and, as to the remaining claims, that counsel s performance was based on reasonable professional strategy under the circumstances. As to his appellate counsel, the petitioner claimed that on appeal, counsel failed to raise claims regarding the identification procedure that was used by the police, the state s failure to give him a speedy trial and an allegedly improper argument made by the state during closing argument at trial. The court heard testimony from the petitioner s appellate counsel and concluded that her strategy was based on the law and sound professional judgment. Furthermore, the court concluded that even if counsel s performance was deficient, the petitioner failed to present any evidence that he was prejudiced by counsel s alleged deficient performance. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). We conclude that the habeas court had before it sufficient evidence to find as it did and that it did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner s petition for certification to appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 1 The petitioner filed a petition for a new trial, which the court denied, finding that the witnesses recantations were not credible and that the petitioner had failed to meet his burden of proving the validity of the claimed misidentification of him. This court affirmed the judgment in Channer v. State, 54 Conn. App. 620, 738 A.2d 202, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 910, 739 A.2d 1247 (1999).
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.
