respondent contends standard in Connecticut

2001The respondent contends that the standard in Turner "applies to all circumstances in which the needs of prison administration implicate constitutional rights." Washington v. Harper , 494 U.S. 210 , 224 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990).

2001The respondent contends that the standard in Turner "applies to all circumstances in which the needs of prison administration implicate constitutional rights." Washington v. Harper , 494 U.S. 210 , 224 , 110 S.Ct. 1028 , 108 L.Ed.2d 178 (1990).

2011One unified trial . . . is permissible.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 941 , 768 A.2d 949 (2001); see also Practice Book § 35a-7 (b). 18 The respondent contends that this claim, because it implicates Practice Book 35a-4, 19 requires plenary *227 review by this court. 20 Practice Book § 35a-4 (a) provides that “[i]n making a determination upon a motion to intervene by any grandparent of the child or youth, the judicial authority shall consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion as judged by all the circumstances of the case; (2) whether the movant has a direct and

2011One unified trial . . . is permissible.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]), cert, denied, 255 Conn. 941 , 768 A.2d 949 (2001); see also Practice Book § 35a-7 (b). 18 The respondent contends that this claim, because it implicates Practice Book 35a-4, 19 requires plenary *227 review by this court. 20 Practice Book § 35a-4 (a) provides that “[i]n making a determination upon a motion to intervene by any grandparent of the child or youth, the judicial authority shall consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion as judged by all the circumstances of the case; (2) whether the movant has a direct and

2011We conclude that the petitioner failed to raise as an issue in his amended petition any claim regarding counsel’s failure to recommend that he accept the state’s plea offer; this issue, therefore, was not before the habeas court, and, thus, it could not have been decided by the habeas court. 3 See Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164 , 166 n.2, 987 A.2d 1031 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (2010).

2011We conclude that the petitioner failed to raise as an issue in his amended petition any claim regarding counsel’s failure to recommend that he accept the state’s plea offer; this issue, therefore, was not before the habeas court, and, thus, it could not have been decided by the habeas court. 3 See Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164 , 166 n.2, 987 A.2d 1031 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (2010).

2011We conclude that the petitioner failed to raise as an issue in his amended petition any claim regarding counsel’s failure to recommend that he accept the state’s plea offer; this issue, therefore, was not before the habeas court, and, thus, it could not have been decided by the habeas court. 3 See Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164 , 166 n.2, 987 A.2d 1031 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (2010).

2011We conclude that the petitioner failed to raise as an issue in his amended petition any claim regarding counsel’s failure to recommend that he accept the state’s plea offer; this issue, therefore, was not before the habeas court, and, thus, it could not have been decided by the habeas court. 3 See Velasco v. Commissioner of Correction, 119 Conn. App. 164 , 166 n.2, 987 A.2d 1031 , cert. denied, 297 Conn. 901 , 994 A.2d 1289 (2010).

2008The respondent further contends that, even if the claim was preserved, the petitioner cannot prevail because (1) he is not entitled to the retroactive application of this court’s dictum in State v. Stevens, supra, 278 Conn. 12 -13, quoting People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713 , 610 N.E.2d 356 , 594 N.Y.S.2d 683 (1993), that a defendant should have the opportunity to contest the reliability of the evidence supporting the violation of a Garvin condition, (2) even if the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the dictum in Stevens, the trial court provided him with an opportunity to contest th

2008The respondent further contends that, even if the claim was preserved, the petitioner cannot prevail because (1) he is not entitled to the retroactive application of this court’s dictum in State v. Stevens, supra, 278 Conn. 12 -13, quoting People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713 , 610 N.E.2d 356 , 594 N.Y.S.2d 683 (1993), that a defendant should have the opportunity to contest the reliability of the evidence supporting the violation of a Garvin condition, (2) even if the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the dictum in Stevens, the trial court provided him with an opportunity to contest th

2008The respondent further contends that, even if the claim was preserved, the petitioner cannot prevail because (1) he is not entitled to the retroactive application of this court’s dictum in State v. Stevens, supra, 278 Conn. 12 -13, quoting People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, 713 , 610 N.E.2d 356 , 594 N.Y.S.2d 683 (1993), that a defendant should have the opportunity to contest the reliability of the evidence supporting the violation of a Garvin condition, (2) even if the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the dictum in Stevens, the trial court provided him with an opportunity to contest th

1992The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Sanders v. Sullivan, 863 F.2d 218 (2nd Cir. 1988), addressed the question of how to handle a conviction that was based on testimony that the testifying witness later recanted.