Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Donald E. COLE, Jr. v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.
The petitioner, Donald E. Cole, Jr., appeals following the habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment denying his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We dismiss the appeal.
The petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a(a) and received a sentence of sixty years incarceration. He then filed a direct appeal. Both this court and our Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. See State v. Cole, 50 Conn.App. 312, 718 A.2d 457 (1998), aff'd, 254 Conn. 88, 755 A.2d 202 (2000).
The petitioner subsequently filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that his trial counsel, Alan D. McWhirter, had provided ineffective assistance. Specifically, the petitioner claimed that McWhirter improperly (1) did not attempt to introduce into evidence a report written by Julia Ramos-Grenier, a clinical psychologist, (2) failed to call the petitioner's parents as witnesses and (3) permitted him to testify in his defense. The court rejected the petitioner's claims, finding that Ramos-Grenier's report was cumulative of her testimony at the petitioner's trial; that McWhirter made a reasonable strategic decision not to call the petitioner's parents as witnesses because the benefit of their testimony would be outweighed by the risk of cross-examination; and that the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily exercised his constitutional right to testify in his defense. The petitioner then filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the court denied.
The petitioner must demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. We conclude that the petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues he has 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). Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 26503.
Decided: August 08, 2006
Court: Appellate Court of Connecticut.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)