· 3/18/2025

Balbuena v. Commissioner of Correction

Syllabus

The petitioner, who previously had been convicted in 2004 of sexual assault and unlawful restraint in the first case and, in 2014, of conspiracy to commit murder in the second case, appealed, on the granting of certification in each case, from the judgments of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the first case and dismissing in part and denying in part his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the second case. The petitioner claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly denied his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the second case. Held: The habeas court properly dismissed the petition in the first case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as the petitioner was no longer in custody on the 2004 conviction when he filed the petition, and he did not satisfy any exception to the custody requirement recognized in Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss (532 U.S. 394). This court declined to review the petitioner's inadequately briefed claim that the habeas court improperly dismissed the count of the petition in the second case alleging actual innocence as to both the 2004 and 2014 convic- tions for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The habeas court properly rejected the petitioner's claim, in the second case, of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on his trial counsel's failure to investigate and present the petitioner's alibi defense, as the record demonstrated that trial counsel did investigate the petitioner's alleged alibi and the petitioner failed to demonstrate that trial counsel's strategy not to present the petitioner's alibi defense was objectively unreasonable. The habeas court did not improperly deny the petitioner's claim, in the second case, of ineffective assistance of counsel predicated on his trial counsel's failure to confront the state's three eyewitnesses on cross-examina- tion, as trial counsel's strategic decision not to undermine favorable evidence as to the

Judges: Bright; Suarez; Clark

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.