*********************************************** 

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. 

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 advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears 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. 

*********************************************** 
ANGELO REYES v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT

(AC 43571)

Elgo, Cradle and Pellegrino, Js.

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 54-95 (a)), ‘‘[n]o appeal may be taken from a judgment

denying a petition for a new trial unless, within ten days after the

judgment is rendered, the judge who heard the case or a judge of the

Supreme Court or the Appellate Court, as the case may be, certifies

that a question is involved in the decision which ought to be reviewed

by the Supreme Court or by the Appellate Court. . . .’’

The petitioner, who had been convicted of arson in the second degree,

conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree, appealed to this court from

the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a new trial. After

the parties had filed their initial appellate briefs, this court ordered that,

at oral argument, they be prepared to address whether the appeal should

be dismissed because the petitioner failed to seek certification to appeal

pursuant to § 54-95 (a), and, at oral argument, the state requested a

dismissal of the appeal due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with

that requirement. This court then ordered the parties to file supplemental

briefs on the issue. Held that the appeal was dismissed due to the

petitioner’s failure to seek certification to appeal pursuant to § 54-95

(a): pursuant to Santiago v. State (261 Conn. 533), compliance with

§ 54-95 (a) is mandatory, and an appellate tribunal should not entertain

an appeal from the denial of a petition for a new trial unless the petitioner

first has sought certification to appeal pursuant to the statute; accordingly, this court declined to entertain the petitioner’s appeal.

Argued September 9, 2021—officially released February 15, 2022

Procedural History

Petition for a new trial following the petitioner’s conviction of arson in the second degree, conspiracy to

commit criminal mischief in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit burglary in the first degree, brought

to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New

Haven and tried to the court, Alander, J.; judgment

denying the petition, from which the petitioner

appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Norman A. Pattis, with whom were Zachary E. Reiland, and, on the brief, Kevin Smith, and Cameron

Atkinson, certified legal intern, for the appellant (petitioner).

James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, with

whom, on the brief, were Craig Nowak, senior assistant

state’s attorney, and Patrick J. Griffin, state’s attorney,

for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Angelo Reyes, appeals

from the judgment of the trial court, claiming that it

improperly denied his petition for a new trial. The dispositive issue is whether the appeal should be dismissed

due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with the certification requirement of General Statutes § 54-95 (a). We

answer that query in the affirmative and, accordingly,

dismiss the appeal.

Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted

of two counts of arson in the second degree in violation

of General Statutes § 53a-112 (a) (2), two counts of

conspiracy to commit criminal mischief in the first

degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a)

and 53a-115 (a) (1), and one count of conspiracy to

commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-101 (a) (1).1 From

that judgment of conviction, the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed to our Supreme Court. See State v. Reyes,

325 Conn. 815, 818, 160 A.3d 323 (2017).

On June 15, 2017, the petitioner commenced the present action for a new trial pursuant to General Statutes

§ 52-270 (a).2 The petition was predicated on evidence

of third-party culpability that the petitioner claimed was

newly discovered. The petitioner also alleged that the

respondent, the state of Connecticut, had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d

215 (1963).

The trial court held a hearing on the petition, at which

the petitioner presented the testimony of four witnesses. In its subsequent memorandum of decision, the

court found that the evidence of third-party culpability

offered by the petitioner ‘‘was not material to the issues

at [his criminal] trial and certainly not likely to produce

a different result in the event of a new trial.’’ The court

further found that the exculpatory evidence that the

respondent allegedly failed to disclose ‘‘was known to

the petitioner prior to his trial.’’ The court thus denied

the petition for a new trial and rendered judgment in

favor of the respondent.

On November 1, 2019, the petitioner filed an appeal

of that judgment with this court. Oral argument on that

appeal was scheduled for September 9, 2021. On August

27, 2021, this court ordered: ‘‘The parties are hereby

notified to be prepared to address at oral argument

on September 9, 2021, whether this appeal should be

dismissed because the petitioner failed to seek certification to appeal pursuant to [§] 54-95 (a). See Santiago

v. State, 261 Conn. 533, 544–45 [804 A.2d 801] (2002).’’

Argument before this court proceeded as scheduled

on September 9, 2021, at which time the respondent

requested a dismissal of the appeal due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with the certification requirement
of § 54-95 (a). By order dated September 10, 2021, this

court ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs on

that issue; both parties complied with that order.

With that context in mind, we turn to the statutory

mandate at issue. Section 54-95 (a) provides in relevant

part that ‘‘[n]o appeal may be taken from a judgment

denying a petition for a new trial unless, within ten

days after the judgment is rendered, the judge who

heard the case or a judge of the Supreme Court or the

Appellate Court, as the case may be, certifies that a

question is involved in the decision which ought to be

reviewed by the Supreme Court or by the Appellate

Court. . . .’’ As our Supreme Court has noted, § 54-95

(a) places ‘‘limits on when a petitioner may appeal from

the denial of a petition for a new trial . . . .’’ Jones v.

State, 328 Conn. 84, 106, 177 A.3d 534 (2018). The

Supreme Court has held that, although the limitation

codified in § 54-95 (a) is not jurisdictional in nature,

compliance therewith is ‘‘mandatory.’’ Santiago v.

State, supra, 261 Conn. 540. For that reason, the court

concluded that there is ‘‘no reason why an appellate

tribunal should entertain an appeal from a denial of a

petition for a new trial unless the petitioner first has

sought certification to appeal pursuant to § 54-95 (a).’’

Id., 544.

In the present case, the petitioner never sought certification to appeal pursuant to § 54-95 (a) prior to commencing this appeal. Guided by the precedent of our

Supreme Court, we therefore decline to entertain the

petitioner’s appeal.3

The appeal is dismissed.

1 The relevant facts underlying the petitioner’s conviction are set forth in

the decision on his direct criminal appeal. See State v. Reyes, 325 Conn.

815, 818–19, 160 A.3d 323 (2017). It would serve no useful purpose to recount

them here.

2 General Statutes § 52-270 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘The Superior

Court may grant a new trial of any action that may come before it, for . . .

the discovery of new evidence . . . .’’

3 Two weeks after oral argument was held before this court, the petitioner

filed a ‘‘request for leave to file [an] untimely petition for certification to

appeal [and] petition for certification to appeal’’ in the trial court, a copy

of which he appended to his supplemental appellate brief. Because that

filing, at present time, remains pending before the trial court, it is not

properly before us.