Justia Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Eric Ham was charged with six crimes, including murder. Shortly before trial, the state offered Ham a plea bargain. Ham's counsel informed Ham that, if he accepted the plea offer, he would be eligible for parole after serving eighty-five percent of his sentence. When counsel advised Ham, his advice was consistent with the parole board's interpretation of the law. Ham rejected the offer. The jury returned a guilty verdict on all six charges, and the court sentenced Ham to a total effective term of fifty years imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Subsequently, in Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, the Supreme Court clarified the law at issue, making it clear that if Ham had accepted the plea offer, he would have been eligible for parole after serving fifty percent of his sentence, rather than eighty-five percent. Ham subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel and arguing that but for counsel's error in advising him about the law, he would have accepted the plea offer. The habeas court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that counsel's performance was not deficient. View "Ham v. Comm'r of Correction" on Justia Law

Defendant Calvin Long was committed to the jurisdiction of the psychiatric security review board following a finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease of assault in the second degree. The state later petitioned to continue the defendant's commitment under Conn. Gen. Stat. 17a-593(c), which the defendant challenged on equal protection grounds. The Supreme Court held that the legislature had a legitimate basis for providing review procedures for the continued commitment of insanity acquittees different from those afforded to civilly committed inmates. Following remand, the trial court granted the state's petition. The defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly construed the Supreme Court's decision in the previous appeal to preclude his current equal protection challenge and that a higher level of scrutiny of the statutory scheme should apply to this claim than the Court had applied to his claim in the previous appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that its decision in the previous appeal precluded the defendant's present claims. View "State v. Long" on Justia Law

In 2000, the manager of the Goodspeed Airport cut down trees and woody vegetation on property owned by a land trust. A total of six actions were filed as a result of the clear-cutting. In addition to instituting two of three consolidated actions, the airport brought two federal actions, and the district court found in favor of the land trust in both actions. In state court three other actions were consolidated. The trial court concluded that (1) the airport parties' claims for substantive and procedural due process were barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and (2) the airport parties' claims claims for first amendment retaliation and abuse of process were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that either the issues were actually litigated in the federal actions and thus are barred by collateral estoppel, or the claims could have been raised in the federal actions and thus are barred by res judicata. View "Ventres v. Goodspeed Airport, L.L.C." on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued defendants alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and General Statutes 7-465 when defendants terminated plaintiff from his employment as a senior field engineer in defendants' information technology department after it had determined that he was responsible for disruptions in its computer network. At issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding defendants a portion of defendants' attorney's fees that it incurred in defending against plaintiff's action. The court held that the trial court acted well within its discretion in awarding attorney's fees where plaintiff continued to litigate his claims against defendants after it became clear that those claims were groundless.