ineffective assistance claim in Connecticut

2001State v. Mason, 186 Conn. 574, 579 , 442 A.2d 1335 (1982); State v. Just, 185 Conn. 339, 370 , 441 A.2d 98 (1981). ‘Absent the evidentiary hearing available in the collateral action, review in this court of the ineffective assistance claim is at best difficult and sometimes impossible.

2001State v. Mason, 186 Conn. 574, 579 , 442 A.2d 1335 (1982); State v. Just, 185 Conn. 339, 370 , 441 A.2d 98 (1981). ‘Absent the evidentiary hearing available in the collateral action, review in this court of the ineffective assistance claim is at best difficult and sometimes impossible.

2015The evidentiary hearing pro- vides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency. . . . [O]n the rare occasions that we have addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal . . . we have limited our review to situations in which the record of the trial court’s allegedly improper action was ade- quate for review or the issue presented was a question of law, not one of fact requiring further evidentiary development.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks o

2015The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency. . . . [O]n the rare occasions that we have addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal . . . we have limited our review to situations in which the record of the trial court’s allegedly improper action was adequate for review or the issue presented was a question of law, not one of fact requiring further evidentiary development.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; footnote omitted; internal

2015The evidentiary hearing pro- vides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency. . . . [O]n the rare occasions that we have addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal . . . we have limited our review to situations in which the record of the trial court’s allegedly improper action was ade- quate for review or the issue presented was a question of law, not one of fact requiring further evidentiary development.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks o

2015The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency. . . . [O]n the rare occasions that we have addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal . . . we have limited our review to situations in which the record of the trial court’s allegedly improper action was adequate for review or the issue presented was a question of law, not one of fact requiring further evidentiary development.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; footnote omitted; internal

2015The evidentiary hearing pro- vides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency. . . . [O]n the rare occasions that we have addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal . . . we have limited our review to situations in which the record of the trial court’s allegedly improper action was ade- quate for review or the issue presented was a question of law, not one of fact requiring further evidentiary development.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks o

2015The evidentiary hearing pro- vides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency. . . . [O]n the rare occasions that we have addressed an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal . . . we have limited our review to situations in which the record of the trial court’s allegedly improper action was ade- quate for review or the issue presented was a question of law, not one of fact requiring further evidentiary development.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks o

2020The United States Supreme Court has observed that ‘‘while in some instances even an isolated error can support an ineffective-assistance claim if it is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial . . . it is difficult to establish ineffective assistance when counsel’s overall performance indicates active and capable advocacy.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 , 131 S. Ct. 770 , 178 L.

2020The United States Supreme Court has observed that ‘‘while in some instances even an isolated error can support an ineffective-assistance claim if it is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial . . . it is difficult to establish ineffective assistance when counsel’s overall performance indicates active and capable advocacy.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quota- tion marks omitted.) Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 111 , 131 S. Ct. 770 , 178 L.

2005The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” 14 (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 426 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L.

2005The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 426 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L.

2005The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” 14 (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 426 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L.

2005The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” 14 (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 426 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L.

2005The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” 14 (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 426 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L.

2005The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence which is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” 14 (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner, 267 Conn. 414, 426 , 838 A.2d 947 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 809 , 125 S. Ct. 36 , 160 L.

2003The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Owens, 63 Conn. App. 245, 262 , 775 A.2d 325 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 933 , 776 A.2d 1151 (2001).

2002The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Owens, 63 Conn. App. 245, 262 , 775 A.2d 325 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 933 , 776 A.2d 1151 (2001).

2003The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Owens, 63 Conn. App. 245, 262 , 775 A.2d 325 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 933 , 776 A.2d 1151 (2001).

2002The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Owens, 63 Conn. App. 245, 262 , 775 A.2d 325 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 933 , 776 A.2d 1151 (2001).

2003The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Owens, 63 Conn. App. 245, 262 , 775 A.2d 325 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 933 , 776 A.2d 1151 (2001).

2003The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Owens, 63 Conn. App. 245, 262 , 775 A.2d 325 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 933 , 776 A.2d 1151 (2001).

2001“As our Supreme Court has stated [in State v. Leecan, supra, 542 ], an ineffective assistance claim should be resolved, not in piecemeal fashion, but as a totality after an evidentiary hearing in the trial court where the attorney whose conduct is in question may have an opportunity to testify.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Laracuente, 57 Conn. App. 91, 97 , 749 A.2d 34 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 923 , 754 A.2d 798 (2000).

2000“We have long held that the proper foram in which to address claims of ineffective representation of counsel is in the habeas foram or in a petition for a new trial, rather than on direct appeal. . . . [0]ur Supreme Court has stated [that] an ineffective assistance claim should be resolved, not in piecemeal fashion, but as a totality after an evidentiary hearing in the trial court where the attorney whose conduct is in question may have an opportunity to testify.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Laracuente, 57 Conn. App. 91, 97 , 749 A.2d 34 , cert. denied, 253

2001“As our Supreme Court has stated [in State v. Leecan, supra, 542 ], an ineffective assistance claim should be resolved, not in piecemeal fashion, but as a totality after an evidentiary hearing in the trial court where the attorney whose conduct is in question may have an opportunity to testify.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Laracuente, 57 Conn. App. 91, 97 , 749 A.2d 34 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 923 , 754 A.2d 798 (2000).

2000“We have long held that the proper foram in which to address claims of ineffective representation of counsel is in the habeas foram or in a petition for a new trial, rather than on direct appeal. . . . [0]ur Supreme Court has stated [that] an ineffective assistance claim should be resolved, not in piecemeal fashion, but as a totality after an evidentiary hearing in the trial court where the attorney whose conduct is in question may have an opportunity to testify.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Laracuente, 57 Conn. App. 91, 97 , 749 A.2d 34 , cert. denied, 253

2001The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.’ State v. Mason, supra, 579 .” State v. Patrick, 42 Conn. App. 640, 650-51 , 681 A.2d 380 (1996).

2001The evidentiary hearing provides the trial court with the evidence that is often necessary to evaluate the competency of the defense and the harmfulness of any incompetency.’ State v. Mason, supra, 579 .” State v. Patrick, 42 Conn. App. 640, 650-51 , 681 A.2d 380 (1996).

2001“As our Supreme Court has stated [in State v. Leecan, supra, 542 ], an ineffective assistance claim should be resolved, not in piecemeal fashion, but as a totality after an evidentiary hearing in the trial court where the attorney whose conduct is in question may have an opportunity to testify.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Laracuente, 57 Conn. App. 91, 97 , 749 A.2d 34 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 923 , 754 A.2d 798 (2000).

2001“As our Supreme Court has stated [in State v. Leecan, supra, 542 ], an ineffective assistance claim should be resolved, not in piecemeal fashion, but as a totality after an evidentiary hearing in the trial court where the attorney whose conduct is in question may have an opportunity to testify.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Laracuente, 57 Conn. App. 91, 97 , 749 A.2d 34 , cert. denied, 253 Conn. 923 , 754 A.2d 798 (2000).

1986“In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel it is necessary for the defendant to prove that trial counsel’s performance was not reasonably competent or within the range of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law, and if it was not, that such lack of competence contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 89 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985); State v. Rivera, 196 Conn. 567, 570 , 494 A.2d 570 (1985). “ ‘We have repeatedly held that ineffective assistance claims are more properly pursued in a petition for a new trial or a writ of habeas corpus.’ State v.

1986“In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel it is necessary for the defendant to prove that trial counsel’s performance was not reasonably competent or within the range of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law, and if it was not, that such lack of competence contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 89 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985); State v. Rivera, 196 Conn. 567, 570 , 494 A.2d 570 (1985). “ ‘We have repeatedly held that ineffective assistance claims are more properly pursued in a petition for a new trial or a writ of habeas corpus.’ State v.

1986“In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel it is necessary for the defendant to prove that trial counsel’s performance was not reasonably competent or within the range of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law, and if it was not, that such lack of competence contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 89 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985); State v. Rivera, 196 Conn. 567, 570 , 494 A.2d 570 (1985). “ ‘We have repeatedly held that ineffective assistance claims are more properly pursued in a petition for a new trial or a writ of habeas corpus.’ State v.

1986“In order to establish ineffective assistance of counsel it is necessary for the defendant to prove that trial counsel’s performance was not reasonably competent or within the range of ordinary training and skill in the criminal law, and if it was not, that such lack of competence contributed to the defendant’s conviction.” State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 89 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985); State v. Rivera, 196 Conn. 567, 570 , 494 A.2d 570 (1985). “ ‘We have repeatedly held that ineffective assistance claims are more properly pursued in a petition for a new trial or a writ of habeas corpus.’ State v.

1983Absent the evidentiary hearing available in the collateral action, review in this court of the ineffective assistance claim is at best difficult and sometimes impossible.” State v. Chairamonte, 189 Conn. 61, 64-65 , 454 A.2d 272 (1983), quoting State v. Mason, 186 Conn. 574, 578-79 , 442 A.2d 1335 (1982); see also State v. Scielzo, 190 Conn. 191, 206 , 460 A.2d 951 (1983).

1983Absent the evidentiary hearing available in the collateral action, review in this court of the ineffective assistance claim is at best difficult and sometimes impossible.” State v. Chairamonte, 189 Conn. 61, 64-65 , 454 A.2d 272 (1983), quoting State v. Mason, 186 Conn. 574, 578-79 , 442 A.2d 1335 (1982); see also State v. Scielzo, 190 Conn. 191, 206 , 460 A.2d 951 (1983).

2026In its memorandum of decision, the habeas court rejected the petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim, concluding that McIntyre did not perform deficiently in failing to allege that Pickering’s failure to object to the admissibility of the autopsy report and Carver’s related testimony because, under Crawford and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S. Ct. 2266 , 165 L.

2026In its memorandum of decision, the habeas court rejected the petitioner’s ineffective assistance claim, concluding that McIntyre did not perform deficiently in failing to allege that Pickering’s failure to object to the admissibility of the autopsy report and Carver’s related testimony because, under Crawford and Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 , 126 S. Ct. 2266 , 165 L.

2026The court did not interrupt the defendant or stop him from completing his argument, notwithstanding the court’s ultimate denial of his motion and its state- ment that the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim was “best reserved for another forum . . . .” Cf., e.g., State v. Morant, 13 Conn. App. 378, 384–85, 536 A.2d 605 (1988) (concluding that defendant was entitled to evidentiary hearing on motion to withdraw guilty plea when trial court, by interrupting defendant, effectively precluded him from making more specific allegations of fact).

2026The court did not interrupt the defendant or stop him from completing his argument, notwithstanding the court’s ultimate denial of his motion and its state- ment that the defendant’s ineffective assistance claim was “best reserved for another forum . . . .” Cf., e.g., State v. Morant, 13 Conn. App. 378, 384–85, 536 A.2d 605 (1988) (concluding that defendant was entitled to evidentiary hearing on motion to withdraw guilty plea when trial court, by interrupting defendant, effectively precluded him from making more specific allegations of fact).