Cator 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. ****************************************************** FRANTZ CATOR v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 25300) Bishop, DiPentima and Gruendel, Js. Submitted on briefs September 27 officially released November 8, 2005 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Fuger, J.) Robert E. Byron, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). Gerard P. Eisenman, senior assistant state s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The habeas court denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus that was filed by the petitioner, Frantz Cator. The petitioner claimed that his trial counsel rendered ineffective legal assistance and that he was actually innocent of the crimes of which he was convicted. The petitioner appeals following the habeas court s denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal. The petitioner seeks appellate review only of the court s rejection of his actual innocence claim. We have carefully reviewed the court s resolution of that claim. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues raised with regard to that claim 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). Having failed to satisfy any of those criteria, the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the court s denial of his petition for certification to appeal reflects an abuse of discretion. See Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994). The appeal is dismissed.
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.
