Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 202 Conn. App. 21

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of various crimes, sought a second writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, ineffective assistance of criminal trial counsel and former habeas counsel. The habeas court, upon the request of the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, issued an order to show cause why the petition should be permitted to proceed in light of the fact that the petitioner had filed it outside of the two year time limit for successive petitions set forth in the applicable statute (§ 52-470 (d) (1)). The court conducted an evidentiary hearing and, thereafter, dismissed the petition pursuant to § 52-470 for lack of good cause for the delay in filing the successive petition. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the habeas petition and properly determined that the petitioner failed to establish good cause for the delay in filing his untimely habeas petition; the petitioner failed to rebut successfully the presumption of unreasonable delay set forth in § 52-470, as he failed to demonstrate that something outside of his control or the control of habeas counsel caused or contributed to the delay, as the only evidence having been presented was the petitioner's testimony that he was allegedly unaware of the statutory deadline imposed by § 52-470 and was never made aware of it by his former habeas counsel, and that he did not always have access to a law library or similar legal resource while he was incarcerated and was in lockdown, evidence that was insufficient to persuade the court that he had rebutted the presumption of unreasonable delay, and the court properly took into consideration the lengthy delay, indicating that the second petition was filed nearly three years beyond the filing deadline, and properly concluded that, even if it accepted the petitioner's proffered excuses at face value, a mere assertion of ignorance of the law, without mo