AC43187 - Banks v. Commissioner of Correction ("This appeal returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court. See Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 347 Conn. 335, 361, 297 A.3d 541 (2023).The petitioner, Harold T. Banks, Jr., 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 General Statutes § 52-470 (c) and (e). Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 205 Conn. App. 337, 338, 256 A.3d 726 (2021), rev'd, 347 Conn. 335, 297 A.3d 541 (2023). On appeal, the petitioner asserted unpreserved claims that were not included in his petition for certification to appeal, contending that his unpreserved claims were reviewable for plain error and pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 205 Conn. App. 342.This court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, holding that the certification requirement in § 52-470 (g) bars appellate review of unpreserved and uncertified claims whether for plain error or pursuant to Golding. Id., 343–45.
After granting the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal, our Supreme Court reversed the judgment of this court, holding that "§ 52-470 (g) does not restrict [a reviewing court's] authority to review unpreserved claims under the plain error doctrine or Golding following a habeas court's denial of a petition for certification to appeal, so long as the appellants' claims challenge the habeas court's handling of the habeas proceeding itself and the appellant fulfills his or her burden of establishing that the unpreserved claims" are nonfrivolous under Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 616, 646 A.2d 126 (1994).Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 347 Conn. 350.Accordingly, our Supreme Court remanded the case to this court with direction to consider "whether the petitioner fulfilled his burden of establishing that his Golding and plain error claims challenging the habeas court's handling of the habeas proceeding itself were nonfrivolous under the [Simms] criteria." Id., 360–61.Because we conclude that he has not fulfilled his burden, we dismiss the appeal.")
AC43188 - Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction ("This appeal returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court. See Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction, 347 Conn. 377, 297 A.3d 981 (2023). The petitioner, Benjamin Bosque, appealed 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 General Statutes § 52-470 (c) and (e).Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction, 205 Conn. App. 480, 481, 257 A.3d 972 (2021), rev'd, 347 Conn. 377, 297 A.3d 981 (2023).On appeal, the petitioner claimed that "the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal because (1) it should have been obvious to the court that his habeas counsel had provided constitutionally ineffective assistance and (2) he was denied his constitutional right to counsel because the court had failed to intervene when his counsel did not present any evidence in support of his claim that good cause existed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay in the filing of his petition."Id., 481–82.Although the petitioner conceded that he neither preserved his claims before the habeas court nor included them in his petition for certification to appeal, he contended that his unpreserved and uncertified claims were reviewable under the plain error doctrine or pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).Bosque v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 205 Conn. App. 486. This court dismissed the appeal, holding that the certification requirement in § 52-470 (g) bars appellate review of unpreserved claims not raised in the petition for certification, whether for plain error or pursuant to Golding. Id., 487–89.We concluded "that, if the petitioner desired appellate review of his claims of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel and/or whether the habeas court had a duty to address counsel's deficient performance to prevent prejudice to the petitioner, he was required to include those issues as grounds for appeal in his petition for certification to appeal." Id., 489.
...
Accordingly, in the present case, because this court dismissed the petitioner's appeal "without first considering whether his unpreserved claims are nonfrivolous under the Simms criteria," our Supreme Court remanded the case to this court to consider "that issue consistent with the principles set forth in Banks." Id. For the reasons stated in the companion case also released today; see Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 225 Conn. App. ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2024); we conclude that the petitioner's unpreserved claims are frivolous under the Simms criteria and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.")
AC46237 - Davis v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Paul Davis, appeals following the granting of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he alleged a due process violation and ineffective assistance of his trial and appellate counsel. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court violated his constitutional right to due process and abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a continuance to afford him additional time to secure the testimony of a witness. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")
AC46270 - Hilton v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, James Hilton, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) improperly rejected his claim that his right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated when his first habeas counsel, Attorney David B. Rozwaski, failed to present the expert testimony of a forensic pathologist in support of his claim that the petitioner's criminal trial counsel, Attorney Al Ghiroli, had provided ineffective assistance of counsel and (2) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal as to his claim that the habeas court applied the wrong legal standard in assessing witness credibility. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court as it relates to the petitioner's first claim. We dismiss the appeal as to the petitioner's second claim.")
AC46580 - Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction ("This case returns to us following the remand ordered in Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction, 216 Conn. App. 616, 624, 285 A.3d 1194 (2022).The petitioner, Marcus Hodge, appeals, following the grant of his petition for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing, on its own motion, his amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus dated November 15, 2017 (first amended petition).On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in rejecting the filing of his six count amended petition dated February 21, 2023 (second amended petition).Because there is no practical relief that we can afford the petitioner, who has fully served his underlying sentence, we dismiss the appeal as moot.")
AC43327 - Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction ("The petitioner, Michael G., appeals 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 General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e). 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 petitioner claims, inter alia, that the court erred in concluding that he failed to establish good cause for his late-filed petition. In particular, the petitioner argues 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. 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), 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.")
AC46226 - Reed v. Commissioner of Correction ("The self-represented petitioner, Doraine Reed, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying her amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus.Her appeal concerns an administrative directive amended by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, in 2016, which changed the calculation of credit that inmates may earn under the risk reduction earned credit program established by General Statutes § 18-98e. See Conn. Dept. of Correction, Administrative Directive 4.2A (effective February 1, 2016). On appeal, the petitioner contends that the application of that administrative directive to her violates the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution.
Resolution of the petitioner's claim is controlled by Rios v. Commissioner of Correction, 224 Conn. App. 350, ___ A.3d ___ (2024).In Rios, this court concluded that, because Administrative Directive 4.2A, as amended, did not constitute a law within the meaning of the ex post facto clause, the petitioner could not establish an ex post facto violation.Id., 353, 375.Bound by that precedent; see State v. White, 215 Conn. App. 273, 304–305, 283 A.3d 542 (2022), cert. denied, 346 Conn. 918, 291 A.3d 108 (2023); the petitioner's ex post facto challenge must fail.
The judgment is affirmed.")