Talton v. Commissioner of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** LEONARD TALTON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 24269) Lavery, C. J., and Bishop and DiPentima, Js. Argued June 8 officially released August 24, 2004 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Fuger, J.) Kirstin B. Coffin, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner). John A. East III, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Matthew C. Gedansky, state s attorney, and Linda N. Howe, senior assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Leonard Talton, appeals from the habeas court s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he was provided with effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court. On November 13, 1998, a jury convicted the petitioner of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a, conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a and 53a-48 (a), criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35. We affirmed the conviction on direct appeal. State v. Talton, 63 Conn. App. 851, 853, 779 A.2d 166, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 907, 782 A.2d 1250 (2001). The petitioner subsequently filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus on March 15, 2002. Therein, he alleged that his state and federal constitutional rights were violated because his trial attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel. Specifically, the petitioner alleged that trial counsel failed to investigate properly and to present an alibi defense. After a hearing, the court concluded that the petitioner had failed to produce sufficient evidence to overcome the strong presumption that counsel s conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assis- tance. The court thereafter granted the petition for certification to appeal to this court. Our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties persuades us that the judgment should be affirmed. The issues were resolved properly in the habeas court s complete and well reasoned memorandum of decision.1 See Talton v. Warden, 48 Conn. Sup. 625, A.2d (2003). Because that memorandum of decision fully addresses the arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as the proper statement of the issues and the applicable law concerning those issues. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Renaissance Management Co. v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 267 Conn. 188, 191 92, 836 A.2d 1180 (2003); Burton v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 79 Conn. App. 364, 365 66, 829 A.2d 927, cert. denied, 267 Conn. 903, 838 A.2d 209 (2003). The judgment is affirmed. 1 The petitioner also claims that the court improperly relied on hearsay testimony in its judgment. Although that issue was not resolved in the court s memorandum of decision, a thorough review of the record reveals that the testimony in question was relied on not for its truth, but rather for its effect on the petitioner s counsel. As such, we conclude that the testimony was not hearsay, and the petitioner s claim is without merit. See State v. Cruz, 212 Conn. 351, 356, 562 A.2d 1071 (1989).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
