Clue v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 353 Conn. 97

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 52-212a), ''[u]nless otherwise provided by law . . . a civil judgment . . . rendered in the Superior Court may not be opened . . . unless a motion to open . . . is filed within four months following the date on which the notice of judgment . . . was sent.'' The petitioner filed a habeas petition in 2018, challenging an earlier convic- tion. In 2020, the petitioner was deported. Subsequently, the petitioner's habeas counsel unsuccessfully attempted to contact both the petitioner and certain of the petitioner's family members. In 2021, after a hearing, the habeas petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to appear and prosecute the petition with due diligence. In 2022, approximately fifteen months later, the petitioner filed a motion to open the judgment dismissing his habeas petition, claiming, inter alia, that he had not received notice of the hearing that led to the dismissal and that his counsel had failed to make reasonable efforts to notify him and to communicate with him effectively. The habeas court denied the petitioner's motion to open, conclud- ing that the petitioner had failed to establish a recognized basis for opening the judgment of dismissal beyond the four month period prescribed by § 52- 212a. On appeal from the denial of the motion to open, the Appellate Court reversed, holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of habeas counsel was sufficient to invoke the habeas court's common-law authority to grant a late motion to open a judgment. On the granting of certification, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, appealed to this court. Held: The Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that ineffective assistance of habeas counsel could provide a common-law basis for a habeas court to open a judgment beyond the four month period prescribed by § 52-212a, and, accordingly, this court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded the case with direction to affirm the habeas court's denial of