Petitioner’s Pro Se Claims
See supra b. Pro Se habeas commissions.
Claims Inside and Outside the Record
The amended petition: “must set forth specific grounds for the issuance of the writ including the basis for the claim of illegal confinement…The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is essentially a pleading and, as such, it should conform generally to a complaint in a civil action…The principle that a plaintiff may rely only upon what he has alleged is basic…It is fundamental in our law that the right of a plaintiff to recover is limited to the allegations of his complaint…
While the habeas court has considerable discretion to frame a remedy that is commensurate with the scope of the established constitutional violations…it does not have the discretion to look beyond the pleadings and trial evidence to decide claims not raised…The purpose of the [petition] is to put the [respondent] on notice of the claims made, to limit the issues to be decided, and to prevent surprise.”
In addition, internal citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted Jenkins v. Commissioner, 52 Conn. App. 385, 406, cert. denied, 249 Conn. 920 (1999); see Lebron v. Commissioner, 274 Conn. 507, 519 (2005), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (2014); see also Carpenter v. Commissioner, 274 Conn. 834, 842 (2005)(“As long as the pleadings provide sufficient notice of the facts claimed and the issues to be tried and do not surprise or prejudice the opposing party, we will not conclude that the complaint is insufficient to allow recovery.” (Internal quotation marks omitted; citations omitted)). The specific rules that govern pleadings in habeas cases are contained in Practice Book §§ 23-22 to 23-33. The rules pertaining to pleadings in civil cases also apply. See Practice Book § 10-1, et seq.
Accordingly, the amended petition should include claims inside the record, specifically, counsel’s errors at trial, including the proceedings leading up to trial. Also, the amended petition should also include counsel’s errors on appeal, such as failing to adequately brief an issue or failing to supply the part of the record needed to decide an issue. The amended petition should also include claims outside the record, such as trial counsel’s failure to conduct an adequate investigation of the facts, or appellate counsel’s failure to recognize and brief a meritorious claim.
In addition, the claims should be plead as a violation of the right to effective assistance of counsel. In appropriate cases, the claims may also be plead as a violation of a constitutional right. The same set of facts will support both counts. See, e.g. Hernandez v. Commissioner, supra, 82 Conn. App. 701; Guadalupe v. Commissioner, 68 Conn. App. 376, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 913 (2002). Two counts often shows the prudent approach notwithstanding case law indicating that “in certain circumstances, a petitioner’s claim of a constitutional violation is so inextricably bound up in the issue of the effectiveness of trial counsel, that a separate claim of a constitutional violation is not required.” Carpenter v. Commissioner, 274 Conn. 834, 843 (2005).
Regardless of whether a claim lies inside or outside the record, habeas counsel, when amending the petition, must consult the time limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-470(c)(d)(e)(f). Familiarity with the one-year time limitation that governs federal habeas corpus petitions should happen. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(one-year statute of limitations).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC)
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot get raised on direct appeal, but rather must get raised in a habeas petition. Valeriano v. Bronson, 209 Conn. 75 (1988); State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1184 (1986). The filing of the habeas petition, or amended petition, need not await the outcome of the appeal. See State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. at 541-42; see also Sutton v. Robinson, 6 Conn. App. 518 (1986).