SC20621- Banks v.
Commissioner of Correction ("We conclude that plain error and Golding review is available
to challenge the habeas court’s handling of the habeas proceeding itself,
despite its denial of a petition for certification to appeal, if the appellant
can demonstrate that the unpreserved claims 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.’
(Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Simms v. Warden,
230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994) (Simms II). We therefore reverse the
judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner,
Harold T. Banks, Jr., and remand the case to that court for consideration of
the petitioner’s claims under the Simms II criteria.")
SC20622 - Bosque v.
Commissioner of Correction (“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 further.’ (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 considering
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.”)