Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction
Citation | 82 Conn. App. 600,847 A.2d 1009 |
Decision Date | 27 April 2004 |
Docket Number | (AC 23755) |
Parties | TAMMY HASTINGS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
Court | Appellate Court of Connecticut |
Schaller, Dranginis and Bishop, JS.
Adele V. Patterson, assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).
Christopher T. Godialis, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin T. Kane, state's attorney, and Kathleen A. Dwyer, deputy assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
The petitioner, Tammy Hastings, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing her petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly determined that it lacked jurisdiction. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.
The court found the following facts. The petitioner was convicted under two different docket numbers and sentenced to a total effective term of eighteen months incarceration, which was to end on January 20, 2001. The respondent commissioner of correction actually released the petitioner on January 19, 2001, because January 20 was a Saturday. Prior to her release, on January 16, 2001, the petitioner drafted and had notarized the petition presently at issue. She mailed the petition on the same day, but mailed the petition to the wrong address, sending it to the former address of the Norwich clerk's office. That address had not been used by the Norwich clerk's office for at least four years.
The Norwich clerk's office, despite the incorrect address, still received the petition. At that point, the New London judicial district contained more than one courthouse. The policy in effect at the time stated that all habeas corpus matters were to be handled in New London. Therefore, the Norwich clerk sent the petition by courier to the New London clerk. The petition was time stamped and date stamped as having arrived in New London on January 24, 2001. In keeping with that policy, there was no notation as to when the petition was received in Norwich because the case was not to be handled there. According to the Norwich clerk, the petition would have been sent to New London on either the day it was received or the following day, which would have been Monday, January 22, or Tuesday, January 23, 2001, respectively.
The court held that if the petition had been filed in Norwich before the sentence expired, the petitioner would have complied with General Statutes § 52-466, and the court would have had jurisdiction over the petition. The court found, however, that The court went on to hold that the petitioner was not in custody when the petition was filed and, thus, the court did not have subject matter jurisdiction.
Whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over an action is a question of law, and our review of the court's determination is plenary. Doe v. Roe, 246 Conn. 652, 660, 717 A.2d 706 (1998). To the extent that the court makes necessary factual findings, we review the factual findings only to determine if they are clearly erroneous. Morton Buildings, Inc. v. Bannon, 222 Conn. 49, 53, 607 A.2d 424 (1992); see also Rich-Taub-man Associates v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 236 Conn. 613, 618, 674 A.2d 805 (1996).
"[P]ursuant to General Statutes § 52-466, a Connecticut habeas court has subject matter jurisdiction only over those cases brought by a petitioner who is `illegally confined or deprived of his liberty' under the challenged conviction." Ford v. Commissioner of Correction, 59 Conn. App. 823, 826, 758 A.2d 853 (2000). A person is in custody when he is under a legal restraint. See Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 491-93, 109 S. Ct. 1923, 104 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1989) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles
...25 Kan.App.2d 283, 962 P.2d 566, 569-570; Sykes v. Mississippi (Miss.2000) 757 So.2d 997, 1000-1001; but see Hastings v. Comm. of Corr. (2004) 82 Conn.App. 600, 604, 847 A.2d 1009; Gonzales v. State (2002) 118 Nev. 590, 53 P.3d 901, 903-904; Moore v. Gibson (Okla.Crim.App.2001) 27 P.3d 483,......
-
Spearman v. Comm'r of Corr., AC 35974
...Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction, 290 Conn. 107, 116 n.6, 961 A.2d 403 (2009); see also Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction, 82 Conn. App. 600, 603, 847 A.2d 1009 (2004) (discussing jurisdictional nature of custody requirement in General Statutes § 52-466), appeal dismissed, 274 C......
-
Spearman v. Comm'r of Corr.
...Carpenter v. Commissioner of Correction, 290 Conn. 107, 116 n. 6, 961 A.2d 403 (2009) ; see also Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction, 82 Conn.App. 600, 603, 847 A.2d 1009 (2004) (discussing jurisdictional nature of custody requirement in General Statutes § 52–466 ), appeal dismissed, 274......
-
Young v. Commissioner of Correction
...in custody when he is under a legal restraint." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction, 82 Conn.App. 600, 603, 847 A.2d 1009 (2004), appeal dismissed, 274 Conn. 555, 876 A.2d 1196 A habeas court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear a ......