Abdullah v. Comm'r Of Correction., No. 31039.
Decision Date | 10 August 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 31039. |
Citation | 1 A.3d 1102,123 Conn.App. 197 |
Parties | Munsur ABDULLAH v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Jennifer C. Vickery, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and Jo Anne Sulik, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
GRUENDEL, ROBINSON and BORDEN, Js.
The petitioner, Munsur Abdullah, appeals, following a grant of certification to appeal by the habeas court, from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition asserts that this state's judicial procedures for prosecuting and sentencing criminal defendants result in disproportionately longer sentences for black defendants who refuse to plea bargain than for white defendants who refuse to plea bargain. The petitioner claims that the court, in dismissing his petition, concluded improperly that this alleged system of racial disparity did not violate his right to equal protection as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 20, of the Connecticut constitution. 1 We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of habeas court. 2
In State v. Townsend, 211 Conn. 215, 558 A.2d 669 (1989), the petitioner's direct appeal to our Supreme Court, the facts underlying his criminal conviction were set forth as follows. On February 18, 1986, the petitioner entered the Gary Crooks Center in Bridgeport carrying a rifle under his coat and searching for the victim, Joseph Kelly. The petitioner found and shot the victim, who died as a result of his gunshot wounds. Upon his arrest, the petitioner admitted to shooting the victim and stated that, as a Muslim, he was permitted to do so under Muslim law because the victim had insulted his wife. See id., at 216, 558 A.2d 669. Following a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. He was sentenced by the court to life imprisonment. Our Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., at 216, 558 A.2d 669.
The petitioner thereafter brought the habeas corpus action underlying this appeal. 3 In his second amended petition, filed February 24, 2009, the petitioner claimed that “Connecticut's judicial system, including its procedures for charging, negotiating and/or processing criminal cases, systematically result[s] in a disproportionately greater ‘trial penalty’ to black defendants, including the petitioner, who refuse the plea bargain sentences offered to them than to white defendants who refuse the plea bargain sentences offered to them.” This system, according to the petitioner, discriminates on the basis of race against black defendants because “[t]he disparity in the sentences received by black defendants versus those received by white defendants is statistically not explainable by any other variable than race.” The petitioner claimed that these unexplainable disparities are causally related to state actions and therefore violated his federal and state equal protection rights on the ground that his “sentence is longer than it would have been absent the influence of the racially discriminatory aspects of Connecticut's judicial system.” His petition also referenced certain reports and statistical analysis concerning Connecticut's incarcerated population that he claimed detail the significant impact race has had on the sentencing of criminal defendants in Connecticut. Furthermore, he alleged, his right to equal protection was violated “[w]ithout regard to whether the [s]tate of Connecticut ... or any individual acting [therefor], has displayed purpose or intent [to] create or [to] maintain these disparities....”
Citing Practice Book § 23-29(2), 4 the respondent, the commissioner of correction, filed a motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim, which was granted by the habeas court. The respondent claimed, and the court agreed, that dismissal was warranted because the petitioner had failed to allege in his habeas corpus petition the existence of any purposeful discrimination. In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the petitioner's federal equal protection claim was governed by the United States Supreme Court's holding in McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279, 107 S.Ct. 1756, 95 L.Ed.2d 262 (1987), which demands that, in order to prevail, a party alleging an equal protection violation under the fourteenth amendment must demonstrate the existence of purposeful discrimination. Additionally, the habeas court concluded that the petitioner was not relieved under the Connecticut constitution of his burden to plead facts that demonstrated that his sentence was the result of purposeful discrimination. The court, accordingly, granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim for which habeas corpus relief may have been granted. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
We begin our analysis by setting forth the applicable standard of review. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Young v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn.App. 188, 193, 932 A.2d 467 (2007), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 907, 942 A.2d 416 (2008).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Arriaga v. Commissioner of Correction, 120 Conn.App. 258, 262-63, 990 A.2d 910 (2010).
In his amended habeas corpus petition, the petitioner alleged that a system of racial disparity underlying Connecticut's judicial procedures for prosecuting and sentencing criminal defendants violated his right to equal protection as guaranteed under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. On appeal, he contends that his petition was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim even though he states expressly in his pleading that his constitutional claim exists “[w]ithout regard to whether the [s]tate of Connecticut ... or any individual acting [therefor], has displayed purpose or intent [to] create or [to] maintain these disparities....” We disagree.
As set forth by the court in its memorandum of decision, the petitioner's federal equal protection claim is governed by the Unites States Supreme Court's decision in McCleskey v. Kemp, supra, 481 U.S. at 279, 107 S.Ct. 1756. In McCleskey, the petitioner, a black man, had been convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one count of murder in Fulton County, Georgia, and thereafter sentenced to death. Id., at 283-85, 107 S.Ct. 1756. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the petitioner's habeas corpus action, in which he claimed that the Georgia capital sentencing statute violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment because it was administered in a racially discriminatory manner. Id., at 285-86, 107 S.Ct. 1756. In support of his claim, the petitioner offered a statistical study that demonstrated that Georgia defendants whose victims were white were 4.3 times as likely to receive a death sentence as those whose victims were black (Baldus study). Id., at 286-87, 107 S.Ct. 1756. He failed, however, to offer any other specific evidence that would support an inference that racial bias played a role in his sentence. Id., at 292-93, 107 S.Ct. 1756.
In denying his claim, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's reliance on the Baldus study was insufficient to support an inference that the imposition of the death penalty in his particular case was the product of purposeful discrimination. Id., at 297, 107 S.Ct. 1756. The court elucidated: (Emphasis in original.) McCleskey v. Kemp, supra, 481 U.S. at 292, 107 S.Ct. 1756; see also Knight v. Dept. of Public Health, 275 F.3d 156, 166 (2d Cir.2001) ( ); Ricketts v. Hartford, 74 F.3d 1397, 1407 (2d Cir.) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Antonio A. v. Comm'r of Corr.
...beyond the pleadings and trial evidence to decide claims not raised." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Abdullah v. Commissioner of Correction , 123 Conn. App. 197, 202, 1 A.3d 1102, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 930, 5 A.3d 488 (2010).This court has explained that, "[t]o obtain relief through ......
-
Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr., 31763.
...before it to argue the respondent's motion to dismiss, the issue before the court was a matter of law. See Abdullah v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn.App. 197, 201, 1 A.3d 1102 (“conclusions reached by the [habeas] court in its decision to dismiss the habeas petition are matters of la......
-
Woods v. Comm'r of Corr.
...constitutions which demonstrates that his conviction was the product of purposeful discrimination, citing Abdullah v. Commissioner of Correction , 123 Conn. App. 197, 1 A.3d 1102, cert. denied, 298 Conn. 930, 5 A.3d 488 (2010). The respondent also alleged that the petitioner failed to state......
-
Zollo v. Comm'r of Corr.
...before it to argue the respondent's motion to dismiss, the issue before the court was a matter of law. See Abdullah v. Commissioner of Correction, 123 Conn. App. 197,201, 1 A.3d 1102 (''conclusions reached by the [habeas] court in its decision to dismiss the habeas petition are matters of l......