Finney v. Commissioner of Correction
Citations
- 207 Conn. App. 133
Syllabus
The petitioner, who had been convicted in 2008, on a guilty plea, of the crime of kidnapping in the second degree, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance. As relief, the petitioner requested that the habeas court allow him to with- draw his guilty plea. The respondent Commissioner of Correction filed a request for an order to show cause why the petition should be permitted to proceed. Following a hearing, the habeas court determined that the petition, which was filed in 2018, was timely filed within the limitation period set forth in the applicable statute (§ 52-470 (c)) because it was filed within five years of the disposition in 2016 of the petitioner's most recent violation of the probationary portion of his sentence on the 2008 conviction. The habeas court then, on its own motion, dismissed the petition pursuant to the relevant rule of practice (§ 23-29 (2)) on the ground that the petition failed to state a claim on which habeas corpus relief could be granted. Thereafter, on the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. The habeas court improperly dismissed the habeas petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2), the petition having stated a claim on which habeas relief could be granted; the petition raised allegations of ineffec- tive assistance of counsel that, when viewed in the light most favorable to the petitioner, implicitly challenged whether the petitioner knowingly and voluntarily entered the guilty plea, which states a cognizable claim for habeas relief. 2. The habeas court improperly determined that the habeas petition was timely filed within the limitation period set forth in § 52-470 (c); this court disagreed with the habeas court's construction of § 52-470 (c), as the timeliness of a petition under the statute is evaluated on the basis of when the judgment of conviction, not the sentence imposed for that conviction, is final, and any disposition followi
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that the defendant was not in custody for purposes of Miranda when police questioning occurred “at the scene of a traffic accident, on a public road, and before the defendant was transported away in a patrol car.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Bright; Prescott; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.