SC20474 - Brown v.
Commissioner of Correction (Proper procedure for court to follow before dismissing a
petition under PB 23-29; defective petitions under PB 23-24; “After reviewing
the language of §§ 23-24 and 23-29, and their relationship to the provisions
generally governing habeas corpus proceedings; see Practice Book § 23-21 et
seq.; the historical development of the writ of habeas corpus and the public
policy underlying the legislature’s comprehensive habeas reform; see Public
Acts 2012, No. 12-115, § 1 (P.A. 12-115); we conclude that § 23-29 requires the
habeas court to provide prior notice of the court’s intention to dismiss, on
its own motion, a petition that it deems legally deficient and an opportunity
to be heard on the papers by filing a written response. The habeas court may,
in its discretion, grant oral argument or a hearing, but one is not mandated.
We believe this interpretation draws a proper balance between the competing
interests of affording petitioners due process while addressing the need for
the expeditious resolution of habeas petitions in an effort to reach the
meritorious cases. We observe that the Rules Committee remains free to amend
the text of the relevant rules as it deems appropriate.”)
SC20459 - Boria v.
Commissioner of Correction (Companion case to Brown v. Commissioner; “For the
reasons stated in Brown, we conclude that a dismissal under § 23-29 requires
that a petitioner be afforded both prior notice and an opportunity to submit a
brief or a written response. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Appellate
Court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion
and our decision in Brown.”)