Court Opinion

ID: 9896966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:04:48.783999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:56.371428
License: Public Domain

***********************************************
    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was
released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
ginning 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 Publica-
tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
        BENJAMIN BOSQUE v. COMMISSIONER
                OF CORRECTION
                   (SC 20622)
     Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins and Ecker, Js.

                                  Syllabus

The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court from the habeas court’s
   denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the dismissal of
   his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Appellate 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
   this court.

Held that the Appellate Court improperly dismissed the petitioner’s uncerti-
   fied appeal without first considering whether his unpreserved claims
   were not frivolous, and, accordingly, this court reversed the Appellate
   Court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings:

   The issue of whether a reviewing court may review unpreserved claims
   challenging a habeas court’s handling of the habeas proceeding itself
   under the plain error doctrine or Golding, despite the petitioner’s failure
   to raise those claims before the habeas court or in his petition for
   certification to appeal, was resolved in the companion case of Banks v.
   Commissioner of Correction (347 Conn. 335), in which the court con-
   cluded that such claims are reviewable if the appellant can demonstrate
   that they are not frivolous, insofar as they involve issues that are debat-
   able among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve them in a different
   manner, or are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.
                 (Two justices dissenting in one opinion)
       Argued December 22, 2022—officially released July 25, 2023

                            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 the Appellate Court, Cradle, Alexander and Suarez,
Js., which dismissed the appeal, and the petitioner, on
the granting of certification, appealed to this court.
Reversed; further proceedings.
  Deren Manasevit, assigned counsel, for the appel-
lant (petitioner).
   Sarah Hanna, former senior assistant state’s attor-
ney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Corradino,
state’s attorney, and Emily Trudeau, assistant state’s
attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
                                   Opinion

   ECKER, J. This is a certified appeal taken by the
petitioner, Benjamin Bosque, challenging the Appellate
Court’s dismissal of his appeal from the habeas court’s
denial of his petition for certification to appeal. The
petitioner claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly
concluded that unpreserved claims not included in the
petition for certification are unreviewable under the
plain error doctrine or State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233,
239–40, 567 A.3d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel
R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).1 See Bosque
v. Commissioner of Correction, 205 Conn. App. 480,
486–89, 257 A.3d 972 (2021).2 In Banks v. Commissioner
of Correction, 347 Conn. 335, 350–77,            A.3d
(2023), also released today, we 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 fur-
ther.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks
omitted.) Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646
A.2d 126 (1994). Because the Appellate Court dismissed
the petitioner’s uncertified appeal without first consid-
ering whether his unpreserved claims are nonfrivolous
under the Simms criteria, we reverse the judgment of
the Appellate Court and remand for consideration of
that issue consistent with the principles set forth in
Banks.
  The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and
the case is remanded to that court for further proceed-
ings in accordance with this opinion.
  In this opinion McDONALD and D’AURIA, Js., con-
curred.
  1
    We granted the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal, limited
to the following two issues: (1) ‘‘Did the Appellate Court correctly interpret
Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514, 911 A.2d 712 (2006),
Cookish v. Commissioner of Correction, 337 Conn. 348, 253 A.3d 467 (2020),
and other 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?’’ And (2) ‘‘[d]id the Appellate Court correctly interpret Mozell v.
Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62, 967 A.2d 41 (2009), Moye v.
Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 779, 114 A.3d 925 (2015), and other
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?’’ Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction,
338 Conn. 908, 908–909, 258 A.3d 1281 (2021).
  2
    The Appellate Court’s opinion sets forth a complete recitation of the
factual and procedural history of this case. See Bosque v. Commissioner
of Correction, supra, 205 Conn. App. 482–83.