Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction

The petitioner, who had previously been convicted of murder, appealed, on the granting of certification, from the habeas court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that his second criminal trial counsel, S, did not provide ineffective assistance of counsel when he made a decision not to present the testimony of G, the petitioner's former girlfriend and mother of his child, who had offered alibi testimony at the petitioner's first criminal trial. Held: The habeas court correctly concluded, in light of all of the evidence, that S made a reasoned, strategic choice, after a thorough investigation, not to pre- sent both an alibi defense and a misidentification defense, as S investigated G as an alibi witness, considered her relationship to the petitioner, and determined that she would not make a good witness, and, instead, focused his defense on challenging the police investigation and the state's identifi- cation evidence. The habeas court did not err in its determination that S's conduct in failing to present an alibi defense at the petitioner's second criminal trial did not constitute deficient performance. The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the objection of the respondent's counsel to a hypothetical question posed to an expert witness for the petitioner related to S's allegedly deficient performance, as the question could not reasonably be separated from the essence of the ultimate issue that was before the court, namely, whether the standard of care required S to present the alibi defense. Argued March 26, 2025—officially released February 10, 2026

The Petitioner, Kenneth Lee Cross, appeals as of right from the Trousdale County Circuit Court's summary denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. He argues that his probation was revoked at a January 4, 2023 "furlough termination" hearing without counsel and without a valid waiver, rendering the judgment void. The habeas corpus court denied relief, finding noncompliance with statutory filing requirements and concluding the petition failed to state a cognizable habeas corpus claim. Based on our review, we affirm the habeas corpus court's dismissal of the petition.

The petitioner, who previously had been convicted of murder and assault in the first degree, appealed following the denial of his petition for certifica- tion to appeal from the habeas court's judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He claimed, inter alia, that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. Held: The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his underlying claims of error were debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could have resolved the issues in a different manner, or that the questions were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. The habeas court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the peti- tioner failed to demonstrate good cause to excuse the late filing of his habeas petition pursuant to statute (§ 52-470), as the petitioner's argument essentially attacked the credibility determinations of the habeas court, and this court does not second-guess such credibility determinations on appeal. It would not have been an abuse of the habeas court's discretion to deny the petition for certification to appeal if the petitioner had included his claim that the habeas court improperly denied his request to appoint counsel for the good cause hearing, as this court could not conclude that the habeas court's failure to provide such counsel only for the limited purpose of the good cause hearing was the type of egregious defect or ''truly extraordinary situation'' warranting reversal under the plain error doctrine or that it threat- ened the integrity of the judicial system or public confidence in the judicial system such that this court was required to invoke its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to guarantee a right to counsel at any stage of a habeas proceeding. Argued March 18—officially released October 28, 2025