Alexander v. Warden

• Decision Date: 11 December 2017
• Docket Number: CV144006674S
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Carl ALEXANDER #268703 v. WARDEN

Carl ALEXANDER #268703
v.
WARDEN

No. CV144006674S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Rockville, Geographic Area 19

December 11, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

OPINION

Westbrook, J.

The petitioner, Carl Alexander, initiated this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging claims for a due process violation and ineffective legal representation by habeas counsel. The petitioner requests that the court vacate his kidnapping conviction. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The parties appeared before the court on August 14, 2017. For the reasons articulated more fully below, the respondent’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and the petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 1, 2001, the petitioner was arrested in connection with an alleged home invasion in Bridgeport, Connecticut. He was charged with robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(2), two counts of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92, burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101(a)(1), unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 and larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-116. The state also charged the petitioner with three sentence enhancements pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-202k. The petitioner was represented by Attorney Errol Skyers. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and elected a trial by jury.

On December 9, 2002, evidence commenced in the petitioner’s criminal jury trial with testimony by the complaining witness, Margaret Morrison. Morrison testified that the petitioner and two other men invaded her home and demanded money and other valuables at gunpoint. Morrison testified that the men steered her from room to room as they ransacked the house. She further testified that the assailants then bound her mouth, wrists and legs with duct tape and locked her in a bathroom in the basement, where she remained until her husband discovered her upon his return home. After hearing the victim’s testimony on direct examination, the petitioner withdrew his not guilty pleas and pleaded guilty to the charges of kidnapping in the first degree, robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree.

On January 8, 2003, the petitioner testified at the trial of one of his alleged co-defendants, Burley Whitten. The petitioner’s testimony at Whitten’s trial was consistent with Morrison’s testimony at the petitioner’s trial. The petitioner testified that they moved Morrison around the house as they looked for goods for about forty minutes before leaving her in the basement.

On April 25, 2003, the trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective sentence of thirty years of imprisonment. He received a twenty-five-year sentence on the kidnapping count. There was no direct appeal of the underlying convictions.

The petitioner brought his first habeas petition, last amended on August 22, 2005, alleging an ineffective assistance of counsel claim as to Attorney Skyers for failing to properly advise the petitioner regarding his guilty plea. The petitioner was represented by Attorney Sebastian DeSantis. The habeas court, Fuger, J., denied the petition on August 26, 2005. The petitioner appealed the habeas court’s decision, and the petitioner’s appeal was dismissed. Alexander v. Commissioner of Correction, 103 Conn.App. 629, 930 A.2d 58, cert. denied, 284 Conn. 939, 937 A.2d 695 (2007).

The petitioner initiated his second habeas petition, last amended on April 22, 2011, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel claims as to his first habeas counsel, Attorney DeSantis. The habeas court, Santos, J., denied the petition on June 29, 2011. The petitioner appealed the habeas court’s decision, and the decision was affirmed. Alexander v. Commissioner of Correction, 135 Conn.App. 901, 40 A.3d 823, cert. denied, 305 Conn. 917, 46 A.3d 170 (2012).

The petitioner initiated the present habeas petition, his third petition, on October 3, 2014. In his two-count amended petition, filed on February 10, 2017, the petitioner claims that his due process rights are violated because his kidnapping conviction is not supported by sufficient pursuant to State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (2008), in which our Supreme Court reconsidered its interpretation of the kidnapping statute, and that his prior habeas attorneys provided him ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to raise this claim in his prior habeas cases. The respondent filed a return on June 19, 2017, generally denying the petitioner’s claims and asserting special defenses of procedural default, deliberate bypass and statute of limitations.

On July 7, 2017, the petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment as to both counts of the petition. In support of the motion, the petitioner filed a memorandum of law accompanied by portions of transcripts from prior proceedings and copies of prior habeas petitions and decisions. On July 13, 2017, the respondent filed an objection to the petitioner’s motion and a cross motion for summary judgment and memorandum of law in support of the motion. The parties appeared before this court for a hearing on August 14, 2017.

II

DISCUSSION

" ‘The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of showing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and that the party is, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ ... Rogers v. Commissioner of Correction, 143 Conn.App. 206, 210, 70 A.3d 1068 (2013). ‘Practice Book § 23-37 provides in relevant part that a habeas court may grant summary judgment if the pleadings, affidavits and any other evidence submitted show that there is no genuine issue of material fact between the parties requiring a trial and the moving party is...