ABOUT JAMES
Attorney James E. Mortimer represents parties in family, criminal, post-conviction and appellate matters. James has extensive experience litigating cases in both trial and appellate courts. He is a graduate of the Sacred Heart University, where he earned his B.S. in Criminal Justice, summa cum laude, with a minor in Psychology. During his undergraduate studies James interned with the Norwalk Public Defender’s Office.
James received his J.D. from the University of Connecticut School of Law, with honors, where he graduated in the top ten percent of his class. During law school James served as an Executive Editor of the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal. James also participated in the Asylum and Human Rights and Connecticut Urban Legal Initiative Clinics. Additionally, while in law school, James interned with ITT Corporation’s Legal Department.
Following law school James worked for a Hartford County law firm, focusing in the areas of family law, criminal law and appellate practice. During this time James litigated a multitude of matters in the Connecticut Superior Courts, the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court. James has worked on complex post-conviction matters, property division, custody, visitation and child support matters.
James is a member of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
James received his J.D. from the University of Connecticut School of Law, with honors, where he graduated in the top ten percent of his class. During law school James served as an Executive Editor of the Connecticut Public Interest Law Journal. James also participated in the Asylum and Human Rights and Connecticut Urban Legal Initiative Clinics. Additionally, while in law school, James interned with ITT Corporation’s Legal Department.
Following law school James worked for a Hartford County law firm, focusing in the areas of family law, criminal law and appellate practice. During this time James litigated a multitude of matters in the Connecticut Superior Courts, the Appellate Court and the Supreme Court. James has worked on complex post-conviction matters, property division, custody, visitation and child support matters.
James is a member of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association.
Practice:
• Family Law • Criminal and Post-Conviction Law • Appellate Practice |
Education:
• Sacred Heart University, BS (summa cum laude) • University of Connecticut, JD (honors) |
Educational Honors:
• CALI Excellence for the Future Award, Business Organizations • CALI Excellence for the Future Award, International Corporate Insolvency • Sacred Heart University’s Gold Medal of Excellence |
Bar Admissions: State of Connecticut (2012) & State of New York (2013)
notable cases
Clue v. Comm'r of Corr., 223 Conn. App. 803 (2024): Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the habeas court denying the petitioner's untimely motion to open. As an issue of first impression, the Appellate Court concluded that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is an equitable basis for opening judgment in a habeas action under the common law authority of the habeas court beyond the four month statutory period set forth in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-212a.
State v. Terry Freeman, 344 Conn. 503 (2022): Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Connecticut Supreme Court, in a split decision, determined that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that they had exercised due diligence when an arrest warrant was served seven days following the expiration of the statute of limitations. The matter was remanded with direction to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss. Chief Justice Robinson authored a concurrence. Justice Keller wrote the dissent. Zaniewski v. Zaniewski, 190 Conn. App. 386 (2019): Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the judgment of dissolution and ordered a new trial on financial matters. This was due to the trial judge's failure to provide an adequate factual basis for the financial orders. Juan G. v. Commissioner of Correction, 188 Conn. App. 245 (2019): Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered the requested relief. The Appellate Court found that the trial court improperly dismissed a claim in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Marquez v. Commissioner of Correction, 330 Conn. 575 (2019): Connecticut Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court, which had affirmed the habeas court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. At the habeas trial, the petitioner raised claims regarding the state's suppression of a deal with a cooperating witness and false testimony from the witness concerning the benefits promised to him. However, Justice Palmer writing separately, encouraged the use of written proffer agreements with cooperating so as to inform the jury of a cooperating witness' potential motives in testifying. Influenced by this decision, in October of 2019, the Division of Criminal Justice issued a new policy requiring that prosecutors reduce such understandings to writing. Breton v. Commissioner of Correction, 330 Conn. 462 (2018): Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered the requested relief, finding that changes to parole eligibility pursuant to a 2013 adverse statutory modification of parole for "violent offenders" was a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The Court ordered that the appellant, as well as similarly situated "violent offenders" be considered as parole eligible at a time consistent with the law as it existed at the time of the offense. Garner v. Commissioner of Correction, 330 Conn. 486 (2018): In a companion case to Breton, the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, in part, the judgment of the trial court and ordered the requested relief, finding that an adverse change in parole eligibility was a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. State v. Milner, 325 Conn. 1 (2017): Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, denying a defendant's motion for recusal. However, the Supreme Court determined that trial counsel's failure to comply with Practice Book § 1- 23, regarding an issue of alleged judicial bias, did not render the claim unreviewable. Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 419 (2017): Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the state's appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court ordering a new trial. The Appellate Court had determined that the trial court improperly dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by raising, sua sponte, the affirmative defense of deliberate bypass. |
State v. T.S. (2022) sentence modified in accessory to murder and conspiracy case by over twenty-five percent reduction in term of incarceration.
M.S. v. Comm'r of Corr. (2021) habeas petition granted, vacating 2006 conviction for manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm and ordering a new trial in light of due process violation. State v. J.A. (2021) sentence modified in attempted murder case by twenty percent reduction in term of incarceration. State v. K.D. (2021) sentence modified in manslaughter first degree case by twenty-five percent reduction in term of incarceration. State v. H.B. (2019): client's motion to correct an illegal sentence granted based upon the ambiguous nature of the conviction. Mandatory lifetime sex offender registration terminated. J.A. v. D.A. (2018): client successfully pressed for the dismissal of paternity action predicated on jurisdictional issue. J.W. v. A.A. (2018): following a trial, client successfully obtained favorable orders on custody and visitation. |
Disclaimer: Nothing contained in this website is legal advice. The use of contact information on this website does not create the existence of an attorney-client relationship between The Mortimer Law Firm, LLC and the individual or entity using said information. Any mention of past results in cases handled by this office is not representative of future results in any given case. Each case is very fact specific, and The Mortimer Law Firm, LLC does not guarantee the outcome in any case.