Canales v. Comm'r of Corr.
| Decision Date | 06 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | AC 43321 |
| Parties | Flora B. CANALES v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Robert L. O'Brien, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was William A. Adsit, assigned counsel, North Haven, for the appellant (petitioner).
Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Paul Ferencek, state's attorney, and Leah Hawley, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
The petitioner, Flora B. Canales, appeals following the denial of her petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing her petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (c) (2) and (e). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying her petition for certification to appeal following its determination that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate good cause to overcome the statutory presumption of unreasonable delay. We disagree and, therefore, dismiss the appeal.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. After a jury trial, the petitioner was convicted of one count of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. State v. Canales , 281 Conn. 572, 574, 916 A.2d 767 (2007). The trial court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective term of fifty years of imprisonment and, on March 13, 2007, our Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction on direct appeal. Id., at 575–76, 916 A.2d 767.
More than ten years after our Supreme Court's disposition of her direct appeal, the petitioner, on October 30, 2017, filed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus that is at issue in this appeal.1 The respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, filed a request with the habeas court, pursuant to § 52-470 (c) and (e), for an order to show cause as to "why [the petitioner] should be permitted to proceed despite [her] delay in filing the instant habeas corpus petition."
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an objection to the respondent's request for an order to show cause. In her objection, the petitioner admitted that she filed her petition on October 30, 2017, and recognized that she "had until October 1, 2017, to file a timely petition." In support of her assertion of good cause, the petitioner stated that she had "been seeking relief since the imposition of her sentence in October, 2003"; had taken a direct appeal of her conviction in November, 2003; and "attempted ‘another appeal,’ on the advice of a cellmate," which ultimately "led her to sentence review, although that was not her intention."2 Additionally, she asserted that, "in 2007 she completed a petition for [a] writ of habeas corpus, which she gave to another inmate to mail into court for her," and that "she never heard anything from the court and [was] unsure if the petition ever made it to the court, or if the court was merely ‘uninterested.’ " Moreover, the petitioner asserted that she "ha[d] reached out to several [attorneys], seeking advice and representation in pursuit of relief" but that she ultimately filed her petition "upon the suggestion of an [aide] who assists [her] with medical issues ...." Finally, her objection set forth that she was sixty-seven years old, "ha[d] been diagnosed, per the Department of Correction, with a delusional disorder," and that she "[was] not one who has filed numerous petitions" or "had any other known habeas cases heard by the court."
On March 8, 2019, the court, Newson , J. , held a show cause hearing, during which the following colloquy occurred:
Thereafter, on May 21, 2019, the court issued a memorandum of decision dismissing the petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In its decision, the court concluded that the petitioner's petition was untimely because she "had until October 1, 2017, to file the present petition, however, it was not filed until October 30, 2017." The court recognized that, "[w]hile this would seem a relatively minor delay, her original conviction became final ten years prior, with the issuance of the Supreme Court decision on March [13], 2007."3 Moreover, the court noted that, although the petitioner had filed a timely objection to the respondent's request for an order to show cause, "the petitioner declined the opportunity to present evidence or exhibits in opposition to the [respondent's] motion" at the evidentiary hearing. The court concluded that, "[o]nce the rebuttable presumption arose, the petitioner was obligated to provide some evidence of the reason for the delay, which she declined to do." (Emphasis in original.) Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the court denied. This appeal followed.
After the petitioner and the respondent filed their principal briefs, this court issued its decision in Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 202 Conn. App. 21, 244 A.3d 171 (2020), aff'd, 343 Conn. 424, 274 A.3d 85 (2022). Thereafter, the petitioner filed her reply brief. On February 1, 2021, prior to oral argument before this court, this court notified the parties that they should be prepared to address the effect of its decision in Kelsey on this appeal. After our Supreme Court granted the initial petition for certification to appeal in Kelsey ; Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 336 Conn. 912, 244 A.3d 562 (2021) ; this court stayed its consideration of this appeal pending the final disposition of Kelsey . Following the issuance of our Supreme Court's decision in Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 343 Conn. 424, 274 A.3d 85 (2022), the parties were ordered to file supplemental briefs "addressing the impact of Kelsey ... on this appeal."
We begin by setting forth the legal principles and standard of review that govern our review of a habeas court's denial of a petition for certification to appeal. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction , 214 Conn. App. 358, 363–64, 280 A.3d 501 (2022).
4 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 343 Conn. at 440, 274 A.3d 85.
On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court erred in dismissing her habeas petition because "she certainly did not fail to provide any evidence, as the habeas court decided."5 The petitioner argues that her objection to the respondent's request for an order to show cause "should have been sufficient for the habeas court to make a determination of whether [she had] established good cause." We disagree.
Section 52-470 (c) provides in relevant part: "[T]here shall be a rebuttable presumption that the filing of a petition challenging a judgment of conviction has been delayed without good cause if such petition is filed after ... October 1, 2017 ...." Section 52-470 (e) provides in relevant part that, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial