Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction

18 Citing cases

  1. Oliphant v. Comm'r of Corr.

    79 A.3d 77 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 6 times
    Dismissing appeal related to consolidated petition

    ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn.App. 613, 614, 836 A.2d 471 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004). On appeal to this court, the petitioner claimed that Judge Pittman improperly “concluded that he failed to meet his burden of proof on his claims that (1) it was an abuse of discretion for [Judge Gaffney] to require that he wear shackles during voir dire, (2) it was an abuse of discretion for [Judge Gaffney] to order him to appear at trial wearing a prison uniform and (3) it was a violation of his constitutional right of access to the court to deny him the use of the law library in the correctional facility in which he was housed during the preparation for his trial.”

  2. Oliphant v. Commissioner of Corr.

    127 A.3d 1001 (Conn. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 4 times

    We conclude that the petitioner's claims alleged in the 2011 petition are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and, therefore, that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion by denying certification to appeal. The appeal is dismissed. See Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 146 Conn.App. 499, 79 A.3d 77 (dismissing appeal related to consolidated petition), cert. denied, 310 Conn. 963, 83 A.3d 346 (2013); State v. Oliphant, 115 Conn.App. 542, 973 A.2d 147 (affirming judgment revoking probation), cert. denied, 293 Conn. 912, 978 A.2d 1113 (2009); Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn.App. 613, 836 A.2d 471 (2003) (affirming dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004); State v. Oliphant, 47 Conn.App. 271, 702 A.2d 1206 (1997) (affirming judgment of conviction for larceny in first degree), cert. denied, 244 Conn. 904, 714 A.2d 3 (1998). The underlying facts and procedural histories of each of the petitioner's prior appeals are set forth in the opinions cited.

  3. Oliphant v. Warden, State Prison

    53 Conn. Supp. 194 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    The dismissal of the petition was affirmed on appeal. See Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn.App. 613, 836 A.2d 471 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004). The petitioner's second, state petition was dismissed for failure to assert a claim for habeas relief. Attorney John Imhoff, Jr., represented the petitioner in that habeas matter.

  4. Oliphant v. McGill

    PRISONER Case No. 3:08Cv1728(WWE) (D. Conn. Sep. 21, 2011)   Cited 1 times

    [T]he court improperly concluded that he failed to meet his burden of proof on his claims that (1) it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to require that he wear shackles during voir dire, (2) it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to order him to appear at trial wearing a prison uniform and (3) it was a violation of his constitutional right of access to the court to deny him the use of the law library in the correctional facility in which he was housed during the preparation for his trial.Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 613, 614, 836 A.2d 471, 472 (2003). On December 23, 2003, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

  5. Oliphant v. Dep't of Corrections

    Case No. 3:04CV470(CFD), Prisoner (D. Conn. Aug. 18, 2006)   Cited 2 times

    [T]he court improperly concluded that he failed to meet his burden of proof on his claims that (1) it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to require that he wear shackles during voir dire, (2) it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to order him to appear at trial wearing a prison uniform and (3) it was a violation of his constitutional right of access to the court to deny him the use of the law library in the correctional facility in which he was housed during the preparation for his trial.Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 613, 614, 836 A.2d 471, 472 (2003). On December 23, 2003, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the trial court.

  6. Oliphant v. Commissioner

    274 Conn. 563 (Conn. 2005)   Cited 86 times
    Upholding dismissal of habeas petition because petitioner failed to allege that he was in custody on conviction from which he was seeking relief

    Moreover, at the time of the habeas court's ruling, the petitioner already had raised claims pertaining to the September conviction in a separate habeas petition. In that proceeding, the habeas court held an evidentiary hearing and the petitioner had the opportunity to appeal. Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 613, 614, 836 A.2d 471 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004). Because the petitioner had a separate opportunity to be heard with regard to the September conviction, the rationale behind the rule that pleadings should be construed broadly does not apply. Accordingly, we conclude that the habeas court properly construed the petition as contesting the April convictions only.

  7. Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction

    845 A.2d 412 (Conn. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    Decided March 12, 2004 The petitioner Anthony W. Oliphant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 613 (AC 22014), is denied. VERTEFEUILLE, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.

  8. Dieudonne v. Comm'r of Corr.

    141 Conn. App. 151 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013)   Cited 5 times
    In Dieudonne, trial counsel failed to investigate and call an eyewitness who corroborated the petitioner's version of events.

    The petitioner states that we should decline to review this argument because it is not properly before this court. See Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn.App. 613, 618, 836 A.2d 471 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004) (“This court is not bound to consider claimed errors unless it appears on the record that the question was distinctly raised ... and was ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant's claim.... To review [claims that do not meet these criteria] now would amount to an ambuscade of the [habeas] judge.” [Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.] ).

  9. Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction

    117 Conn. App. 120 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009)   Cited 35 times
    Reviewing court is “not compelled to consider issues neither alleged in the habeas petition nor considered at the habeas proceeding”

    (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 613, 618, 836 A.2d 471 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004). "This court is not compelled to consider issues neither alleged in the habeas petition nor considered at the habeas proceeding. . . ."

  10. Madagoski v. Commissioner of Correction

    104 Conn. App. 768 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 8 times
    Concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate that fact finder would have reasonable doubt as to petitioner's guilt if trial counsel had interviewed and called potential witness, because "his testimony, at most, would have been cumulative of other evidence"

    In light of the petitioner's myriad of expressions of his claim, it is difficult to ascertain his actual claim; however, none of these claims raised on appeal was raised distinctly before the habeas court. See Copeland v. Warden, 26 Conn. App. 10, 13-14, 596 A.2d 477 (1991), aff'd, 225 Conn. 46, 621 A.2d 1311 (1993); see also Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 613, 618, 836 A.2d 471 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004). "Furthermore, we fail to see how a court could abuse its discretion in failing to grant a petitioner certification to appeal to challenge an issue that was not first presented to the court and then ruled on by it."