LASCELLES A. CLUE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION, SC 21002

Judicial District of Tolland

Habeas; Whether Habeas Court Has Equitable Authority to Open Judgment After Expiration of Four Month Period Set Forth in General Statutes § 52-212a in Absence of Fraud, Duress or Mistake Based on Ineffective Assistance of Habeas Counsel. The petitioner filed this habeas action challenging a conviction for robbery in the first degree on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. During the pendency of the habeas action, the petitioner was deported to Jamaica. The petitioner's assigned counsel filed a request for a video status conference representing that his attempts to contact the petitioner had been unsuccessful and a notice detailing his efforts to communicate with the petitioner and his family. The habeas court ordered that the matter be scheduled for a hearing on its own motion to dismiss the action due to the petitioner’s failure to cooperate with counsel in prosecuting with due diligence and issued a notice that the matter could be dismissed if the petitioner did not appear at the hearing. Following the hearing in February, 2021, which the petitioner did not attend, the habeas court dismissed the action. In May, 2022, the petitioner filed a motion to open the judgment alleging that his counsel had failed to communicate effectively with him and had made material misrepresentations about his exercise of due diligence in locating the petitioner. The habeas court denied the motion on the basis that it did not have authority to open the judgment beyond the four month period set forth in General Statutes § 52-212a in the absence of a showing that the judgment was obtained by fraud, duress or mutual mistake. The petitioner appealed, and the Appellate Court (223 Conn. App. 803) reversed the judgment. The Appellate Court held that the habeas court improperly found that its authority to grant the petitioner's late motion to open the judgment was exclusively limited to the exceptions for fraud, duress or mutual mistake, as our appellate courts have recognized other equitable exceptions where the protection of the finality of judgments must give way to principles of fairness and equity. The Appellate Court further held that, given both the significant liberty interests at stake in habeas proceedings and the importance of the right to counsel in such proceedings, an equitable exception to the statutory time period is warranted to avoid perpetuating the injustice of a judgment that was not rendered or not timely opened due to the constitutionally deficient performance of habeas counsel. The Appellate Court also noted that our Supreme Court held in Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333 (2023), that ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute good cause to excuse the late filing of a habeas petition under General Statutes § 52-470 and held that the same reasoning applied to a late motion to open a habeas judgment based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Court remanded the matter to the habeas court for a new hearing on the habeas petition. The respondent filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the Supreme Court granted as to the question of whether the Appellate Court correctly concluded that a habeas court has equitable authority to open a judgment after the four month period set forth in § 52-212a in the absence of fraud, duress or mistake based on the ineffective assistance of habeas counsel.