Court Opinion

ID: 9870724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 20:07:32.65665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:09.535788
License: Public Domain

PALMER, J., concurring.
  

   I agree with the result that the majority reaches because I believe that our decision in
   
    Duperry
   
   v.
   
    Solnit
   
   ,
   
    261 Conn. 309
   
   ,
   
    803 A.2d 287
   
   (2002), controls the outcome of this case, and the petitioner, Anthony Dyous, has not asked us to overrule that decision. In light of Judge Stefan R. Underhill's thoughtful analysis in
   
    Duperry
   
   v.
   
    Kirk
   
   ,
   
    563 F.Supp.2d 370
   
   (D. Conn. 2008), of the same fundamental issue presented in this case, however, I now question whether our application of
   
    Teague
   
   v.
   
    Lane
   
   ,
   
    489 U.S. 288
   
   ,
   
    109 S.Ct. 1060
   
   ,
   
    103 L.Ed.2d 334
   
   (1989), in
   
    Duperry
   
   v.
   
    Solnit
   
   , supra, at 319-26,
   
    803 A.2d 287
   
   , was correct. Because the majority understandably relies on our reasoning in
   
    Duperry
   
   v.
   
    Solnit
   
   , supra, at 309,
   
    803 A.2d 287
   
   , to decide the present case, I concur in the result only.