Appeals & Post-Conviction Proceedings
Frost | Bussert is comprised of experienced federal and state appellate and post-conviction attorneys, whose knowledge of federal and state case law and procedure enables the firm to better raise and preserve issues at the trial court level. We represent clients with respect to both criminal and civil appeals, as well as post-conviction proceedings, including motions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and § 2241 and state petitions for writs of habeas corpus or motions to vacate illegal sentences.
Appeals and post-conviction cases involve claims that legal errors were made during lower court proceedings. Before filing an appeal or a post-conviction petition, we review the record (for example, trial transcripts and exhibits, motions, and rulings) to identify relevant facts and issues, and research those claims that might provide a basis for judicial relief. Because post-conviction petitions are not limited to the existing court record, in such cases we also investigate other potentially meritorious claims. While past successes are not necessarily predictors of future results, the following reflect successes Frost | Bussert attorneys have had in correcting errors made at trial or at sentencing through appeals and through post-conviction proceedings:
State v. Komisarjevsky , 25 A.3d 613 (Conn. 2011)
An interlocutory appeal where the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously held that the trial court’s stated intention to release the defense’s witness list in a high-profile capital case failed to properly account for the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.
United States v. Derrick Isom , 580 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2009)
Waiver of appeal rights commonly found in federal plea agreement was deemed unenforceable. Mr. Bussert has written about the general unenforceability of such waivers.
Kearny v. Commissioner of Correction , 965 A.2d 608 (Conn.App. 2009)
The Connecticut Appellate Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the petitioner’s second writ of habeas corpus and remanded the case for further proceedings.
United States v. Goodhue , 486 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2007)
A 63-month sentence, which was the product of a guilty plea, was vacated due to improper application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
Ku v. Willingham , 431 F.Supp.2d 265 (D.Conn. 2006)
Martin v. Willingham , 430 F.Supp.2d 82 (D.Conn. 2006)
In each of these challenges to the federal Bureau of Prisons’ “10% Rule,” the District Court declared the restriction unlawful. In neither instance did the government appeal. Mr. Bussert has written about the BOP’s unlawful 10% Rule.
State v. Moore , 903 A.2d 669 (Conn.App. 2006)
Failure to Appear conviction vacated and reversed.
State v. Fabricatore , 875 A.2d 48 (Conn.App. 2005)
Sentence vacated due to the trial court’s misapprehension of the law.
Contact experienced appellate and post-conviction attorneys at the offices of FROST | BUSSERT LLC today to schedule an initial free consultation to discuss your case.