Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Quint v. Comm'r of Corr.

275 A.3d 211 (Conn. 2022)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Quint v. Comm'r of Corr.

4 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Comm'r of Corr.

    223 Conn. App. 745 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 3 times

    Because we have determined that the habeas court 763properly concluded that the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim failed under the performance prong of the Strickland-Hill test, we need not reach the petitioner’s evidentiary claim as it relates to the prejudice prong of that test. See, e.g., Quint v. Commissioner of Correction, 211 Conn. App. 27, 36 n.7, 271 A.3d 681 ("[i]n light of our determination that the petitioner failed to establish that [counsel’s] performance was deficient, we need not address the prejudice prong"), cert. denied, 343 Conn. 922, 275 A.3d 211 (2022); Grover v. Commissioner of Correction, 183 Conn. App. 804, 818 n.7, 194 A.3d 316 ("[w]hen a petitioner has failed to meet the performance prong of Strickland, we need not reach the issue of prejudice" (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 933, 194 A.3d 1196 (2018)

  2. Soto v. Comm'r of Corr.

    215 Conn. App. 113 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 9 times
    Affirming habeas court’s determination that petitioner failed to show prejudice resulting from counsel’s allegedly deficient performance during plea process when court credited counsel’s testimony that petitioner insisted that he was innocent of crimes and thought plea offer was unfair, and discredited petitioner’s habeas trial testimony that, but for his counsel’s deficient advice, he would have accepted plea offer, as this court would not reevaluate credibility determination of habeas court

    On appeal, we need not address both prongs of the Strickland test if either is dispositive of the petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. See Quint v. Commissioner of Correction , 211 Conn. App. 27, 32, 271 A.3d 681, cert. denied, 343 Conn. 922, 275 A.3d 211 (2022). Because we conclude that the petitioner has failed to establish that the habeas court erred in its prejudice determination, we limit our analysis to that prong.

  3. Diaz v. Comm'r of Corr.

    214 Conn. App. 199 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 9 times

    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Quint v. Commissioner of Correction , 211 Conn. App. 27, 32–33, 271 A.3d 681, cert. denied, 343 Conn. 922, 275 A.3d 211 (2022). With these principles in mind, we address the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel in turn.

  4. Inglis v. Comm'r of Corr.

    213 Conn. App. 496 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 4 times

    "In its analysis, a reviewing court may look to the performance prong or the prejudice prong first." Quint v. Commissioner of Correction , 211 Conn. App. 27, 36, 271 A.3d 681, cert. denied, 343 Conn. 922, 275 A.3d 211 (2022). We agree with the habeas court's conclusion.