Court Opinion

ID: 9966175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 12:01:49.548509+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.809447
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. 1
                          Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction

         MICHAEL G. v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION*
                          (AC 43327)
                             Suarez, Westbrook and Prescott, Js.

                                            Syllabus

         The petitioner, who previously had been convicted of various crimes,
            appealed to this court 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 the applicable statute
            (§ 52-470 (d) and (e)). On appeal, the petitioner claimed that his prior
            habeas counsel’s failure to advise him of the statutory deadline for filing
            a new petition prior to the withdrawal of his previously pending petition
            constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, which constituted good
            cause for the delay in filing. Held that, in accordance with our Supreme
            Court’s recent decision in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction (348
            Conn. 333) and this court’s recent decision in Hankerson v. Commis-
            sioner of Correction (223 Conn. App. 562), this court reversed the judg-
            ment of the habeas court and remanded the case for a new hearing and
            good cause determination under § 52-470 (d) and (e).
                      Argued April 15—officially released May 7, 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; thereafter, the court denied the petition
         for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed
         to this court, Alvord, Cradle and Eveleigh, Js., which
         dismissed the appeal; subsequently, on the granting of
         certification, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme
         Court, which vacated the judgment of this court and
         remanded the case to this court. Reversed; further pro-
         ceedings.
           Jennifer B. Smith, assigned counsel, for the appellant
         (petitioner).
           * In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the
         victims of sexual abuse and the crime of risk of injury to a child, we decline
         to use the petitioner’s full name or to identify the victim or others through
         whom the victim’s identity may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 1                                  ,0                            3
                        Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction

         Jonathan M. Sousa, deputy assistant state’s attorney,
       with whom, on the brief, were Dawn Gallo, former
       state’s attorney, and Leah Hawley, former senior assis-
       tant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

                                          Opinion

          PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Michael G., appeals
       following the denial of his petition for certification to
       appeal from the judgment of the habeas court dismiss-
       ing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely
       pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e).1 The
       respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, filed a
       request for an order to show cause why the petitioner’s
       habeas petition should not be dismissed as untimely
       pursuant to § 52-470 (d) and (e). On appeal, the peti-
       tioner claims, inter alia, that the court erred in conclud-
       ing that he failed to establish good cause for his late-
       filed petition. In particular, the petitioner argues that
          1
            General Statutes § 52-470 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(d) In the case of
       a petition filed subsequent to a judgment on a prior petition challenging the
       same conviction, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the filing of
       the subsequent petition has been delayed without good cause if such petition
       is filed after the later of the following: (1) Two years after the date on which
       the judgment in the prior petition is deemed to be a final judgment due to
       the conclusion of appellate review or the expiration of the time for seeking
       such review . . . . For the purposes of this section, the withdrawal of a
       prior petition challenging the same conviction shall not constitute a judg-
       ment. The time periods set forth in this subsection shall not be tolled during
       the pendency of any other petition challenging the same conviction. . . .
          ‘‘(e) In a case in which the rebuttable presumption of delay under subsec-
       tion . . . (d) of this section applies, the court, upon the request of the
       respondent, shall issue an order to show cause why the petition should be
       permitted to proceed. The petitioner or, if applicable, the petitioner’s coun-
       sel, shall have a meaningful opportunity to investigate the basis for the delay
       and respond to the order. If, after such opportunity, the court finds that the
       petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for the delay, the court shall
       dismiss the petition. For the purposes of this subsection, good cause
       includes, but is not limited to, the discovery of new evidence which materially
       affects the merits of the case and which could not have been discovered
       by the exercise of due diligence in time to meet the requirements of subsec-
       tion . . . (d) of this section.’’
Page 2                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

         4                          ,0                            0 Conn. App. 1
                         Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction

         his prior habeas counsel’s failure to advise him of the
         statutory deadline for filing a new petition prior to the
         withdrawal of his previously pending petition consti-
         tuted ineffective assistance of counsel, which consti-
         tuted good cause for the delay in filing. In accordance
         with our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rose v.
         Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333, 304 A.3d
         431 (2023), and our recent decision in Hankerson v.
         Commissioner of Correction, 223 Conn. App. 562, 308
         A.3d 1113 (2024),2 we conclude that the judgment of
         the habeas court must be reversed, and we remand the
         case for a new hearing and good cause determination
         under § 52-470 (d) and (e).
           The judgment of the habeas court is reversed and the
         case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance
         with this opinion.

            2
              In 2021, prior to the issuance of the decisions in Rose and Hankerson,
         the appeal from the habeas court’s dismissal of the petitioner’s writ of habeas
         corpus was argued before this court. See Michael G. v. Commissioner of
         Correction, 214 Conn. App. 358, 360, 280 A.3d 501 (2022), vacated, 348 Conn.
         946, 308 A.3d 35 (2024). The appeal was dismissed. Id., 378. The petitioner
         filed a petition for certification to appeal with our Supreme Court, which,
         following the issuance of its decision in Rose, granted the petition, vacated
         the judgment of this court, and remanded the case to this court ‘‘for further
         consideration in light of Rose . . . .’’ Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correc-
         tion, 348 Conn. 946, 308 A.3d 35 (2024).