Rice v. Commissioner of Correction

Citations

• 204 Conn. App. 513

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had been convicted of the crime of murder, filed a third petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court, upon the request of the respondent Commissioner of Correction, issued an order, pursuant to statute (§ 52-470 (e)), to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed as untimely pursuant to § 52-470 (d) (1) on the ground that it was not filed within two years of the conclusion of appellate review of the judgment on the prior habeas petition. Following an evidentiary hearing, during which the petitioner testified, the habeas court dismissed the petition as untimely, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish good cause for the delay in filing his petition. In reaching its decision, the court determined that there was no evidence corroborating the petitioner's testimony that his prior habeas and appellate counsel did not advise him of the statutory time constraints or that he had taken substantial steps to pursue a federal habeas petition. The court also stated that it was not persuaded by that testimony nor the petitioner's testimony that he was unaware of the statutory time constraints. There- after, the habeas court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the petitioner could not prevail on his claim that the habeas court erred in rejecting his claim that his ignorance of the time constraints in § 52-470 (d) constituted good cause for the delay in the filing of his habeas petition, which was based on his argument that his testimony that he was unaware of the statutory deadlines overcomes the rebuttable presumption of unreason- able delay: even if an assertion of ignorance of the statutory deadlines was sufficient to satisfy the burden of showing good cause, the habeas court found that the petitioner's testimony that he was unaware of the deadlines was not credible, and it was not within the purview of this court to second-guess the habeas court's credibility de