Grant v. Commissioner of Correction
Decision Date | 25 May 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 30112.,30112. |
Citation | 121 Conn.App. 295,995 A.2d 641 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | Donnette GRANT v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION. |
Mary H. Trainer, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
James A. Killen, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Dennis J. O'Connor, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
BISHOP, DiPENTIMA and TYMA, Js.*
The petitioner, Donnette Grant, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly (1) dismissed count two of the habeas petition for failure to state a cause of action and (2) denied her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The facts surrounding the underlying conviction were set forth in the decision of this court disposing of the petitioner's criminal appeal. State v. Grant, 68 Conn. App. 351, 352-53, 789 A.2d 1135 (2002).
On December 13, 1999, the petitioner was charged with one count each of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55 (a)(1) and (3), risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 and tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151. Following a trial, a jury found the petitioner guilty of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of § 53a-55 (a)(3) and risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21. State v. Grant, supra, 68 Conn.App. at 351, 789 A.2d 1135. On February 28, 2000, the court imposed a total effective sentence of thirty years incarceration, suspended after twenty years, with five years of probation. The petitioner appealed from the judgment of conviction to this court, and we affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Id. On October 29, 2003, the petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was amended twice, most recently through counsel on April 2, 2007. Only two counts of the second amended petition are subjects of this appeal: count two, alleging that postjudgment medical and scientific evidence contradicted the state's expert opinion, and count three, alleging ineffective assistance of her trial counsel, Sara Bernstein. The court dismissed count two during the habeas trial and, by memorandum of decision dated June 4, 2008, denied the habeas petition as to count three.1 The court granted the petition for certification to appeal from the judgment denying the habeas petition. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
We first set forth our standard of review for a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 107 Conn. App. 833, 838, 947 A.2d 7, cert. denied, 288 Conn. 908, 953 A.2d 652 (2008).
The petitioner first claims that the court improperly dismissed count two of the habeas petition for failure to state a cause of action. Specifically, the petitioner argues that because newly discovered medical and scientific evidence "undermines the validity and viability of the state's theory of criminal liability," she should be granted a new trial. We do not agree.
In the second count of her amended habeas petition, the petitioner alleged that studies published after her conviction contain medical and scientific evidence on shaken baby syndrome that contradict the opinions proffered at trial by the state's expert witness. Prior to trial, the respondent, the commissioner of correction, moved to dismiss this count on the ground that the petitioner had not pleaded actual innocence. On April 13, 2007, the court, Fuger, J., denied the motion without a memorandum of decision. On October 24, 2007, at the close of the petitioner's case-in-chief, the respondent orally moved for a directed verdict on count two.2 The respondent argued that the petitioner had not offered any postjudgment medical or scientific evidence that contradicted the evidence that the state put forth in her criminal trial and that the petitioner had not made a claim of actual innocence. Thereafter, the court, Swords, J., dismissed count two, and stated in the memorandum of decision:
Practice Book § 23-29 provides in relevant part that "the judicial authority may, at any time, upon its own motion or upon motion of the respondent, dismiss the petition, or any count thereof, if it determines that ... (2) the petition, or a count thereof, fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief can be granted or (5) any other legally sufficient ground for dismissal of the petition exists." A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth specific grounds for the issuance of the writ. Practice Book § 23-22(1) specifically provides that the petition shall state "the specific facts upon which each specific claim of illegal confinement is based and the relief requested...." See Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 86 Conn.App. 42, 49, 859 A.2d 948 (2004). ( . (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Holley v. Commissioner of Correction, 62 Conn.App. 170, 181, 774 A.2d 148 (2001).
Count two of the petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus includes no allegation of actual innocence on which to premise her claims regarding newly available postjudgment scientific evidence. It simply alleges: "Notwithstanding whatever level of acceptance shaken baby syndrome may have enjoyed within the medical and scientific community at the time of trial, substantive independent scholarship has been produced since the trial court's judgment that undermines the validity and viability of the theory of criminal liability, as adduced and argued by the state." In her argument before this court, the petitioner claims that count two states a cause of action of actual innocence.3 From our review of the record, we conclude that it was never made clear to the habeas court that the petitioner was proceeding on an actual innocence claim.4 Id. Instead, the petitioner proceeded under the general theory that the evidence presented at the habeas trial showed that the state's evidence related to shaken baby syndrome that was presented at the criminal trial was not valid. The ambiguous pleadings that do not allege actual innocence and the failure of the petitioner to advise the court of her theory during the habeas trial provide a sufficient legal basis to affirm the court's dismissal of count two of the habeas petition.
The petitioner contends that we should interpret her claim as...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McMillion v. Comm'r of Corr., 35308.
...and whether they find support in the facts that appear in the record.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn.App. 295, 298, 995 A.2d 641, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 920, 996 A.2d 1192 (2010). The petitioner argues, and the respondent concedes, that a......
-
McMillion v. Comm'r of Corr.
...and whether they find support in the facts that appear in the record." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 295, 298, 995 A.2d 641, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 920, 996 A.2d 1192 (2010). The petitioner argues, and the respondent concedes, that ......
-
Diaz v. Comm'r of Correction, No. 30919.
...the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy." (Internal quotationmarks omitted.) Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn.App. 295, 304, 995 A.2d 641, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 920, 996 A.2d 1192 (2010).I The petitioner's first claim is that the habeas court erred in a......
-
Kaddah v. Comm'r of Correction
...that did not state valid claim for habeas relief), cert. denied, 294 Conn. 908, 982 A.2d 1082 (2009); Grant v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn.App. 295, 299-302, 995 A.2d 641 (2010) (same). We are mindful that we should be solicitous to pro se petitioners and construe their pleadings l......