Court Opinion

ID: 9966180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 12:01:53.027572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.784655
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   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 postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut 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 Connecti-
cut 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 Jour-
nal 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. 255
                           Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

                  BENJAMIN BOSQUE v. COMMISSIONER
                          OF CORRECTION
                             (AC 43188)
                           Bright, C. J., and Cradle and Suarez, Js.

                                           Syllabus

         The petitioner appealed to this court following the habeas court’s denial of
            his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas
            court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely
            pursuant to statute (§ 52-470). The petitioner’s habeas counsel declined
            the opportunity to present evidence demonstrating good cause for the
            untimely filing of the petition at the show cause hearing before the
            habeas court. On appeal, the petitioner argued, inter alia, that the habeas
            court failed to intervene when his counsel did not present any evidence
            to support his claim that good cause existed to rebut the presumption
            of unreasonable delay in filing his petition. This court dismissed the
            petitioner’s appeal, concluding that his unpreserved claims, which he
            had not included in his petition for certification to appeal, were not
            reviewable under either the plain error doctrine or State v. Golding (213
            Conn. 233). On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to
            our Supreme Court, which held that this court improperly dismissed
            the petitioner’s uncertified appeal without first considering whether his
            unpreserved claims challenging the habeas court’s handling of the
            habeas proceeding itself were reviewable under the plain error doctrine
            or under Golding if the petitioner could demonstrate that the claims
            were not frivolous under the criteria of Simms v. Warden (230 Conn.
            608), namely, whether they involved issues that are debatable among
            jurists of reason, that a court could resolve in a different manner or
            that are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. The
            Supreme Court reversed this court’s judgment and remanded the case
            to this court. . Held that this court concluded that the petitioner’s unpre-
            served claims were frivolous under the Simms criteria and, accordingly,
            dismissed the appeal: the petitioner failed to raise a colorable claim of
            plain error or a violation of a constitutional right because the record
            was inadequate to review such claims under the plain error doctrine or
            Golding, and, because this court’s conclusion in the companion case
            of Banks v. Commissioner (225 Conn. App. 234), was dispositive of
            this appeal, it would serve no purpose to repeat that discussion and
            analysis; moreover, for the reasons stated in Banks, the habeas court
            would not have abused its discretion in denying the petition for certifica-
            tion to appeal if the unpreserved issues had been included therein.

                     Argued January 3—officially released May 7, 2024
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                     Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 255                       ,0              3
                    Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

                            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; thereafter, the court denied the petition
       for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed
       to this court, Cradle, Alexander and Suarez, Js., which
       dismissed the appeal, and the petitioner, on the granting
       of certification, appealed to the Supreme Court, which
       reversed this court’s judgment and remanded the case
       to this court for further proceedings. Appeal dismissed.
         Deren Manasevit, assigned counsel, for the appellant
       (petitioner).
          James A. Killen, senior assistant state’s attorney,
       with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Corradino,
       state’s attorney, Jennifer F. Miller, former assistant
       state’s attorney, and Emily Trudeau, assistant state’s
       attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
                                  Opinion

          BRIGHT, C. J. This appeal returns to us on remand
       from our Supreme Court. See Bosque v. Commissioner
       of Correction, 347 Conn. 377, 297 A.3d 981 (2023). The
       petitioner, Benjamin Bosque, appealed following the
       denial of his petition for certification to appeal from
       the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition
       for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to
       General Statutes § 52-470 (c) and (e). Bosque v. Com-
       missioner of Correction, 205 Conn. App. 480, 481, 257
       A.3d 972 (2021), rev’d, 347 Conn. 377, 297 A.3d 981
       (2023). On appeal, the petitioner claimed that ‘‘the
       habeas court abused its discretion in denying his peti-
       tion for certification to appeal because (1) it should
       have been obvious to the court that his habeas counsel
       had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and
       (2) he was denied his constitutional right to counsel
Page 2                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                       0, 0

         4                         ,0                           0 Conn. App. 255
                            Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

         because the court had failed to intervene when his
         counsel did not present any evidence in support of his
         claim that good cause existed to rebut the presumption
         of unreasonable delay in the filing of his petition.’’ Id.,
         481–82. Although the petitioner conceded that he nei-
         ther preserved his claims before the habeas court nor
         included them in his petition for certification to appeal,
         he contended that his unpreserved and uncertified
         claims were reviewable under the plain error doctrine
         or pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40,
         567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R.,
         317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). Bosque v.
         Commissioner of Correction, supra, 205 Conn. App.
         486. This court dismissed the appeal, holding that the
         certification requirement in § 52-470 (g) bars appellate
         review of unpreserved claims not raised in the petition
         for certification, whether for plain error or pursuant to
         Golding. Id., 487–89. We concluded ‘‘that, if the peti-
         tioner desired appellate review of his claims of ineffec-
         tive assistance of habeas counsel and/or whether the
         habeas court had a duty to address counsel’s deficient
         performance to prevent prejudice to the petitioner, he
         was required to include those issues as grounds for
         appeal in his petition for certification to appeal.’’ Id.,
         489.
            After granting the petitioner’s petition for certifica-
         tion to appeal,1 our Supreme Court reversed this court’s
             1
              Our Supreme Court granted the petition for certification to appeal ‘‘lim-
         ited to the following issues:
            ‘‘1. Did the Appellate Court correctly interpret . . . decisions of this court
         in concluding that plain error review of challenges to the habeas court’s
         handling of the habeas proceedings is unavailable for any issue that is not
         included in the petition for certification to appeal?
            ‘‘2. Did the Appellate Court correctly interpret . . . decisions of this court
         in concluding that review under State v. Golding, [supra, 213 Conn. 233],
         of challenges to the habeas court’s handling of the habeas proceedings is
         unavailable for any issue that is not included in the petition for certification
         to appeal?’’ (Citations omitted.) Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction, 338
         Conn. 908–909, 258 A.3d 1281 (2021).
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 3

       0 Conn. App. 255                        ,0               5
                     Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

       judgment as to the petitioner’s ‘‘challenges to the habeas
       court’s handling of the habeas proceedings’’; Bosque v.
       Commissioner of Correction, 338 Conn. 908, 909, 258
       A.3d 1281 (2021); on the basis of its decision in Banks
       v. Commissioner of Correction, 347 Conn. 335, 297 A.3d
       541 (2023), in which the court ‘‘held that unpreserved
       claims challenging the habeas court’s handling of the
       habeas proceeding itself are reviewable under the plain
       error doctrine and Golding, despite the failure to
       include those claims in the petition for certification to
       appeal, if the appellant can demonstrate that the claims
       are nonfrivolous because they involve issues that ‘are
       debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could
       resolve [them in a different manner]; or that [they] are
       adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’
       . . . Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d
       126 (1994).’’ (Emphasis in original.) Bosque v. Commis-
       sioner of Correction, supra, 347 Conn. 379.
          Accordingly, in the present case, because this court
       dismissed the petitioner’s appeal ‘‘without first consid-
       ering whether his unpreserved claims are nonfrivolous
       under the Simms criteria,’’ our Supreme Court
       remanded the case to this court to consider ‘‘that issue
       consistent with the principles set forth in Banks.’’ Id.
       For the reasons stated in the companion case also
       released today; see Banks v. Commissioner of Correc-
       tion, 225 Conn. App. 234,      A.3d     (2024); we con-
       clude that the petitioner’s unpreserved claims are frivo-
       lous under the Simms criteria and, therefore, dismiss
       the appeal.
          This court previously set forth the relevant facts and
       procedural history in Bosque v. Commissioner of Cor-
       rection, supra, 205 Conn. App. 482–83. ‘‘The petitioner
       was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery in the
       first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48
       and 53a-134 (a) (4), burglary in the first degree in viola-
       tion of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (1), sexual assault
Page 4                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

         6                   ,0                      0 Conn. App. 255
                       Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

         in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-
         70 (a) (1) and four counts of robbery in the first degree
         in violation of . . . § 53a-134 (a) (4). After unsuccess-
         fully appealing his conviction . . . the petitioner filed
         his first habeas . . . petition, which was denied follow-
         ing a trial. . . . The petitioner did take an appeal from
         [the] habeas court’s decision, but . . . the appeal was
         dismissed on February 20, 2013. . . .
            ‘‘On November 3, 2014, the petitioner filed a second
         habeas petition, which was subsequently withdrawn on
         January 29, 2018. On February 26, 2018, the petitioner
         initiated the underlying action by filing a third habeas
         petition. The respondent, [the Commissioner of Correc-
         tion] filed [a] request for an order to show cause [why
         the petition should be permitted to proceed] on Decem-
         ber 6, 2018, asserting that the petitioner had failed to
         file the present petition within two years of when the
         [judgment] on his prior habeas [petition] became final.
         An evidentiary hearing was held on March 8, 2019.
         Although present, the petitioner declined the opportu-
         nity to present testimony or evidence.’’ (Internal quota-
         tion marks omitted.) Id.
            The entire transcript of the evidentiary hearing is only
         two pages. During the hearing, after the respondent’s
         counsel elected to rest on her request for the order to
         show cause, the petitioner’s appointed habeas counsel,
         Attorney Jonathan M. Shaw, argued: ‘‘Your Honor, Mr.
         Bosque did initially file a habeas [petition] within the
         time limit required. His previous habeas counsel with-
         drew from the case. He wished to proceed, but his
         counsel withdrew. So he was not able to. He wasn’t
         capable of proceeding pro se. In the meantime, he had
         his brother do some investigating. He hired an attorney,
         and that was essentially the cause for the delay. He
         does wish to proceed. He’s been actively seeking relief
         since his conviction became final, and I would ask that
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 5

       0 Conn. App. 255                       ,0               7
                    Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

       you allow the petition to go forward.’’ The following
       discussion then occurred:
         ‘‘The Court: And I—just so the record is clear, do
       you desire to present any witnesses or evidence?
         ‘‘[Attorney Shaw]: No, Your Honor.
         ‘‘[The Respondent’s Counsel]: On that, if I may be
       heard briefly, Your Honor. The case law is very clear
       that a withdrawal does not count as a judgment for
       purposes of this statute, and we’re looking at a delay
       of six years, four months, and twenty-four days in
       this case.
         ‘‘The Court: So noted.
         ‘‘[The Respondent’s Counsel]: And it is not a first
       habeas, not even a second habeas.
         ‘‘The Court: Okay. Anything further?
         ‘‘[Attorney Shaw]: Nothing further. Nothing further,
       Your Honor.
          ‘‘The Court: All right. Again, the court will take the
       matter under advisement, and I’ll issue a written deci-
       sion in due course. Okay.
         ‘‘[Attorney Shaw]: Thank you.’’
          ‘‘In a memorandum of decision dated May 21, 2019,
       the court, Newson, J., dismissed the habeas petition as
       untimely under § 52-470 (d) and (e), concluding that
       the petitioner failed to establish good cause for the
       delay in filing the petition beyond the statutory dead-
       line. The court found that the petitioner had until March
       12, 2015, to file a subsequent habeas petition challenging
       his conviction and that the petitioner did not present
       any evidence explaining why his petition was not filed
       until nearly three years after the deadline. The court
       [dismissed] the petition, noting that ‘[o]nce the rebutta-
       ble presumption [that no good cause existed for the
Page 6                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                    0, 0

         8                        ,0                         0 Conn. App. 255
                           Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

         delay] arose, the petitioner was obligated to provide
         some evidence of the reason for the delay in filing this
         petition, which he declined to do.’ . . . The court
         thereafter denied the petition for certification to appeal
         . . . .’’2 (Emphasis in original.) Bosque v. Commis-
         sioner of Correction, supra, 205 Conn. App. 483.
            On remand, the sole issue for this court to decide
         is whether the petitioner has demonstrated ‘‘that the
         unpreserved and uncertified claims are nonfrivolous,
         which [our Supreme Court] define[d] as raising a color-
         able claim of plain error or the violation of a constitu-
         tional right due to the actions or omissions of the habeas
         court. Only if the appellant succeeds in surmounting
         that hurdle will the appellate court review the appel-
         lant’s unpreserved claims on the merits.’’ (Internal quo-
         tation marks omitted.) Banks v. Commissioner of Cor-
         rection, supra, 225 Conn. App. 241.
            In Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 225
         Conn. App. 234, we rejected claims identical to those
         that the petitioner raises in the present case. Attorney
         Shaw also represented the petitioner in Banks and, as
         in the present case, declined the opportunity to present
         evidence demonstrating good cause for the untimely
         filing of the petitioner’s habeas petition at a show cause
         hearing before the same habeas court. Both petitioners
         are represented by the same attorney on appeal, Attor-
         ney Deren Manasevit, who filed nearly identical appel-
         late briefs on their behalf, asserting the same unpre-
         served claims that were not included in their petitions
         for certification to appeal.
             The petitioner’s ‘‘petition for certification to appeal did not include
             2

         grounds related to any claims regarding ineffective assistance of habeas
         counsel or the habeas court’s alleged duty to intervene in the face of the
         alleged ineffective assistance.’’ Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction,
         supra, 205 Conn. App. 486. Rather, the petitioner ‘‘stated only the following
         ground for appeal: ‘Whether the habeas court erred in finding that there
         was not good cause to allow the petitioner’s petition for [a writ of] habeas
         corpus to proceed on the grounds that he filed [it] outside the applicable
         time limits.’ ’’ Id.
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 7

       0 Conn. App. 255                        ,0               9
                     Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction

          During oral argument on remand before this court,
       Attorney Manasevit noted that the arguments in both
       Banks and the present case are the same. She con-
       tended that ‘‘the state, acting through the habeas court
       . . . had an obligation to appoint counsel. [It] failed to
       appoint competent counsel, so [it] failed to fulfill a
       statutory obligation, and I allege that that is a depriva-
       tion of due process, and that’s the Golding claim. Sepa-
       rately, I say the [habeas] court had an obligation to step
       in when it was viewing this patently ineffective counsel,
       and it was plain error for the court not to do so. So,
       they’re separate arguments.’’
          In Banks, we concluded that the petitioner had failed
       to raise a colorable claim of plain error or a constitu-
       tional violation because the record was inadequate to
       review the petitioner’s unpreserved claim pursuant to
       Golding and the plain error doctrine. Banks v. Commis-
       sioner, supra, 225 Conn. App. 254. Accordingly, we held
       that ‘‘it would not have been an abuse of the habeas
       court’s discretion to deny the petition for certification
       to appeal if the unpreserved issues had been included
       therein.’’ Id. Our conclusion in Banks is dispositive of
       this appeal, and it would serve no useful purpose for
       us to repeat our discussion and analysis here. Conse-
       quently, for the reasons stated in that decision, we like-
       wise conclude that the petitioner in the present case
       has failed to raise a colorable claim of plain error or a
       violation of a constitutional right. See id. Therefore, the
       habeas court would not have abused its discretion in
       denying the petition for certification if the unpreserved
       issues had been included therein.
         The appeal is dismissed.
         In this opinion the other judges concurred.