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

The “officially released” date that appears near the 

beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be 

published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it 

is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the 

beginning of all time periods for the filing of 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 Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut 

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event 

of discrepancies between the advance release version of 

an opinion and the 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 

an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or 

Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may 

not be reproduced or distributed without the express 

written permission of the Commission on Official Legal 

Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 , 0 0 Conn. App. 1

Best v. Commissioner of Correction

DURANTE BEST v. COMMISSIONER

OF CORRECTION

(AC 46421)

Elgo, Moll and Suarez, Js.

Syllabus

The petitioner, who previously had been convicted of, inter alia, murder,

sought a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court refused to accept

for filing the petitioner’s untimely amended petition. The habeas court

rendered judgment dismissing the petition on its own motion pursuant

to the applicable rule of practice (§ 23-29), and the petitioner appealed

to this court, claiming that the habeas court erred in refusing to accept

his untimely amended petition. Held that the appeal was dismissed as

moot because there was no practical relief that this court could afford

the petitioner in light of a second habeas action that the petitioner had

filed, which alleged the same counts set forth in the untimely

amended petition.

Argued May 28—officially released July 9, 2024

Procedural History

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the

Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, where

the court, Newson, J., rendered judgment dismissing

the petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting

of certification, appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Robert L. O’Brien, assigned counsel, with whom, on

the brief, was Christopher Y. Duby, assigned counsel,

for the appellant (petitioner).

Alexander A. Kambanis, deputy assistant state’s

attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T.

Corradino, state’s attorney, and Patrick James, former

deputy assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee

(respondent).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Durante Best, appeals,

following the grant of his petition for certification to
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 , 0 3

Best v. Commissioner of Correction

appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, on its own motion pursuant to Practice Book § 23-

29 (1) and (2), his petition for a writ of habeas corpus

filed on October 5, 2017, which challenged only the

structure of his sentence on the convictions that were

affirmed by this court after his first criminal trial.1 On

appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred, on

January 11, 2023, in refusing to accept for filing his

untimely amended petition dated January 6, 2023

(amended petition). The three count amended petition

asserted claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel,

involuntary confession, and interference with the right

to counsel. In March, 2023, the petitioner commenced

a second habeas action, captioned Best v. Commissioner of Correction, Superior Court, judicial district

of Tolland, Docket No. CV-23-5001445-S, in which the

petitioner filed an amended petition dated April 16,

2024, which includes, but is not limited to, the three

counts set forth in the amended petition at issue in

this appeal.2 Because there is no practical relief in the

1 A recitation of the factual background, which is not necessary to repeat

in this opinion, is set forth in State v. Best, 337 Conn. 312, 314–16, 253 A.3d

458 (2020). By way of procedural background, it suffices to state that,

following the petitioner’s first criminal trial, he was convicted of one count

of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), two counts of

attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and

53a-54a (a), two counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General

Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation

of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a). See State v. Best, 168 Conn. App. 675, 676,

146 A.3d 1020 (2016), cert. denied, 325 Conn. 908, 158 A.3d 319 (2017). The

judgment of conviction was reversed as to one count of murder, one count

of attempted murder, and one count of assault in the first degree, and the

case was remanded for a new trial on those counts; the judgment was

otherwise affirmed. Id., 689. Following the petitioner’s second criminal trial,

‘‘the jury found the [petitioner] guilty of the crimes charged [in the remanded

counts]. The trial court sentenced the [petitioner] to a total effective sentence

of forty years imprisonment, to be served consecutive to the sentence

imposed on the counts . . . that remained intact following his first jury

trial.’’ State v. Best, supra, 337 Conn. 316. Thereafter, our Supreme Court

affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., 325. 2 Following oral argument before this court, we ordered, sua sponte, the

parties to file supplemental memoranda addressing whether the pendency of
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 , 0 0 Conn. App. 1

Best v. Commissioner of Correction

present appeal that we can afford the petitioner, we

dismiss the appeal as moot. See Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 343, 349–50,

A.3d (2024).

The appeal is dismissed.

the petitioner’s second habeas action, and/or any activity occurring therein,

rendered this appeal moot. Although both parties agree that the mootness

doctrine applies, the petitioner maintains that the capable of repetition, yet

avoiding review exception to the mootness doctrine also applies. We are

unpersuaded.