Baldwin v. Commission 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. ****************************************************** CARTHANIEL BALDWIN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 24602) Lavery, C. J., and McLachlan and Gruendel, Js. Submitted on briefs April 1, 2005 officially released June 7, 2005 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven, Hon. William L. Hadden, Jr., judge trial referee.) Brian D. Russell, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Carthaniel Baldwin, 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. We dismiss the appeal. The petitioner was convicted, following a trial to a jury, of two counts of sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a) and one count of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a). The petitioner also was found guilty of being a subsequent offender. He was given an effective sentence of forty-four years incarceration. Our Supreme Court upheld the petitioner s conviction. See State v. Baldwin, 224 Conn. 347, 618 A.2d 513 (1993). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) denied his petition for certification to appeal and (2) concluded that his trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance that was prejudicial to him. In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner alleged several ways in which counsel s assistance was ineffective. In this court, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined that his counsel provided effective assistance. He supports that contention by alleging that his counsel failed (1) to investigate the clothing he was wearing on the day of the crime and (2) to inform him that the state intended to charge him as a subsequent offender and would use a plea he had entered pursuant to the Alford doctrine,1 prior to the crimes at issue, as part of its proof. Before we may reach those claims, however, the petitioner must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying 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 he raises 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. 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).
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.
