Kelsey v. Comm'r of Corr.

• Decision Date: 24 May 2022
• Docket Number: SC 20553
• Parties: Eric Thomas KELSEY v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

343 Conn. 424

274 A.3d 85

Eric Thomas KELSEY

v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

SC 20553

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued November 17, 2021

Officially released May 24, 2022

Naomi T. Fetterman, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

Laurie N. Feldman, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Brian W. Preleski, state's attorney, and Jo Anne Sulik, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

ROBINSON, C. J.

The principal issue in this certified appeal requires us to consider the appropriate appellate standard by which to review a habeas court's determination pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e)¹ that a petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption that a successive petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed beyond statutorily prescribed time limits is the result of unreasonable delay, which requires the court to dismiss the petition. The petitioner, Eric Thomas Kelsey, appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,² from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed his second petition for a writ of habeas corpus following its determination that the petitioner had failed to establish good cause for the delayed filing of that second petition. See Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 202 Conn. App. 21, 43–44, 244 A.3d 171 (2020). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly (1) reviewed the habeas court's dismissal of his second petition pursuant to § 52-470 (e) under the abuse of discretion standard, and (2) concluded that the habeas court correctly determined that the petitioner had failed to establish good cause for the untimely filing of his second petition. We disagree with both claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history, aptly set forth by the Appellate Court in its decision. "In December, 2003, a jury [found] the petitioner [guilty] of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-134 (a) (3) and felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c. See State v. Kelsey , 93 Conn. App. 408, 889 A.2d 855, cert. denied, 277 Conn. 928, 895 A.2d 800 (2006). The [trial] court sentenced the petitioner to a total effective term of forty years of incarceration. [The Appellate Court] affirmed the judgment of conviction on direct appeal, rejecting the petitioner's claims that the trial court improperly had admitted into evidence certain out-of-court statements and had denied his motion for a mistrial based on the state's failure to preserve and produce exculpatory evidence. Id., at 410, 416, 889 A.2d 855. [This court] denied certification to appeal [from the Appellate Court's] decision.

"After exhausting his direct appeal, in August, 2007, the petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his conviction. Following a trial on the merits, the habeas court denied the petition. [The Appellate Court] dismissed the petitioner's appeal from the judgment of the habeas court by memorandum decision; Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 136 Conn. App. 904, 44 A.3d 224 (2012) ; and [this court] thereafter denied [his petition for] certification to appeal from the judgment of [the Appellate Court on July 11, 2012]. Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 305 Conn. 923, 47 A.3d 883 (2012).

"Nearly five years later, on March 22, 2017, the petitioner filed the underlying second petition for a writ of habeas corpus that is the subject of the present [certified] appeal. The petitioner raised seven claims not raised in his earlier petition. On May 9, 2017, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, filed a request with the habeas court pursuant to § 52-470 (e) for an order directing the petitioner to appear and show cause why his second petition should be permitted to proceed in light of the fact that the petitioner had filed it well outside the two year time limit for successive petitions set forth in § 52-470 (d) (1).... The habeas court, Oliver, J. , initially declined to rule on the respondent's request for an order to show cause, concluding that the request was premature and that the court lacked discretion to act on the respondent's request because the pleadings in the case were not yet closed. See Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 329 Conn. 711, 714, 189 A.3d 578 (2018).

"After the habeas court denied the respondent's motion for reconsideration, the Chief Justice granted the respondent's request to file an interlocutory appeal from the order of the habeas court pursuant to General Statutes § 52-265a. [This court] rejected the habeas court's reliance on § 52-470 (b) (1) as its basis for not acting on the respondent's request for an order to show cause and concluded that ‘the habeas court's decision to take no action on the respondent's motion was predicated on its mistaken belief that it lacked discretion to act’ and that ‘[i]t is well established that when a court has discretion, it is improper for the court to fail to exercise it.’ Id., at 726, 189 A.3d 578. [This court] reversed the habeas court's decision and remanded the case to the habeas court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Id.

"In accordance with [this court's] remand order, the habeas court, Newson, J. , issued an order to show cause and conducted an evidentiary hearing. The only evidence presented at the hearing was the testimony of the petitioner. The respondent chose not to cross-examine the petitioner or to present any other evidence at the show cause hearing. The court also heard legal arguments from both sides.

"Thereafter, on March 20, 2019, the habeas court ... dismiss[ed] the petitioner's second habeas petition. In its decision, the habeas court first set forth the relevant provisions of § 52-470 and quoted [the Appellate Court's] statement in Langston v. Commissioner of Correction , 185 Conn. App. 528, 532, 197 A.3d 1034 (2018), appeal dismissed, 335 Conn. 1, 225 A.3d 282 (2020), that good cause is ‘defined as a substantial reason amounting in law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act required by law.’ The habeas court determined that the petitioner's proffered excuse failed to establish good cause under the statute, stating: ‘[T]he petitioner had until July 12, 2014, to file his next habeas petition challenging this conviction, but he did not file it until nearly three years beyond that date. The petitioner's claim for delay was that he was sometimes in and out of prison and did not always have access to law books and the law libraries at times when he was held in higher security facilities. He also attempts to offer the excuse that he was not aware of § 52-470. Neither of these is sufficient "good cause" to excuse the petitioner's delay of nearly three years beyond the appropriate filing deadline for this matter.’ In support of its analysis, the habeas court, citing State v. Surette , 90 Conn. App. 177, 182, 876 A.2d 582 (2005), noted parenthetically that ‘ignorance of the law excuses no one.’ On the basis of its determination that the petitioner lacked good cause for the delay in filing the successive petition, the [habeas] court dismissed the petition." (Citation omitted; footnotes omitted.) Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 202 Conn. App. at 24–27, 244 A.3d 171.

The petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed from the judgment of dismissal to the Appellate Court, which determined that (1) a habeas court's determination of whether a petitioner has satisfied the good cause standard is reversible only for an abuse of discretion; id., at 36, 244 A.3d 171 ; and (2) the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the habeas court abused its discretion by dismissing the petitioner's untimely successive petition. Id., at 43, 244 A.3d 171. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the habeas court. Id., at 44, 244 A.3d 171. This certified appeal followed. See footnote 2 of this opinion.

On appeal to this court, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) appellate review of whether a habeas court properly dismissed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 52-470 (d) and (e) is for abuse of discretion, and (2) the petitioner had not established the good cause necessary to overcome the rebuttable presumption of unreasonable delay. We address each claim in turn.

I

We first address the petitioner's claim that, in reviewing the habeas court's determination regarding good cause for abuse of discretion, the Appellate Court improperly disregarded the long-standing jurisprudence articulated in Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction , 334 Conn. 548, 223 A.3d 368 (2020), and Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction , 285 Conn. 556, 941 A.2d 248 (2008), namely, that conclusions reached by a habeas court in a decision to dismiss a habeas petition are matters of law subject to plenary review. The petitioner argues that, despite the Appellate Court's attempt to differentiate dismissals pursuant to § 52-470 from the preliminary dismissals at issue in Gilchrist , plenary review applies irrespective of the basis for the habeas court's dismissal. In response, the respondent argues that Gilchrist and Johnson are inapposite because the grounds for dismissal in those cases presented pure questions of law and that reviewing a good cause determination only for abuse of the court's discretion is consistent with the legislature's intent in enacting § 52-470 and the broader purposes of the habeas process. We agree with the respondent and conclude that a habeas court's determination of whether a petitioner has satisfied the good cause standard under § 52-470 (d) and (e) is reviewed on appeal for abuse of discretion.

Whether the Appellate Court applied the proper...