Skip to main content
· 8/5/2021

Halladay v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

  • 340 Conn. 52

Syllabus

Pursuant to this court's decision in State v. Curcio (191 Conn. 27), certain interlocutory orders and rulings of a trial or habeas court may be appeal- able when the order or ruling terminates a separate and distinct proceed- ing or when the order or ruling so concludes the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them. The petitioner, who had been convicted, on a guilty plea, of murder and tampering with physical evidence, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claim- ing that his plea agreement was the result of the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, subse- quently filed a motion for the production of relevant materials from the petitioner's underlying criminal defense and investigative files. The habeas court rejected the petitioner's claim that those materials were protected by the attorney-client privilege, granted the respondent's motion, and ordered the petitioner to produce from the criminal defense file copies of any materials related to his ineffective assistance claim, as well as a privilege log identifying any undisclosed materials the petitioner contended were unrelated to that claim. The habeas court denied the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court, which granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to this court, claiming that the Appellate Court improperly dismissed his appeal for lack of a final judgment and claiming, alternatively, that this court should reach the merits of his privilege claims pursuant to the statute (§ 52-265a) allowing direct appeals from interlocutory orders in matters involving a substan- tial public interest. Held: 1. The Appellate Court properly dismissed the petitioner's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the habeas court's discovery order was not an appealable final judgment under ei

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.