Langston v. Comm'r of Corr.
| Decision Date | 17 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | SC 20221 |
| Citation | 225 A.3d 282,335 Conn. 1 |
| Parties | Richard LANGSTON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Robert L. O’Brien, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher Y. Duby, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).
Lisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state’s attorney, and David M. Carlucci, assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Robinson, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js.
In December, 2014, the petitioner, Richard Langston, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, later amended in 2016, which was the most recent in a series of state and federal habeas corpus petitions challenging his 1999 conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of numerous offenses, including robbery in the first degree. Following a hearing on a request for an order to show cause filed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, the habeas court rendered judgment dismissing that petition on the ground that the petitioner had failed to show good cause for his untimely filing pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and granted the petitioner certification to appeal to the Appellate Court. The petitioner now appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court dismissing the petition. Langston v. Commissioner of Correction , 185 Conn. App. 528, 197 A.3d 1034 (2018). On appeal, the petitioner claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition because, in filing it late, he had relied on the advice of an attorney who had represented him in connection with an earlier habeas petition filed in 2012 and who had advised him to withdraw that validly filed petition while a motion to dismiss was pending and to file the present one in its place, even though it would be subject to a statutory presumption of delay.
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.
1 We granted the petitioner’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly uphold the habeas co...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. State
...A.2d 213 (1999) ; Langston v. Commissioner of Correction , 185 Conn. App. 528, 532–33, 197 A.3d 1034 (2018), appeal dismissed, 335 Conn. 1, 225 A.3d 282 (2020) ; and whether the delay caused prejudice to the opposing party. See, e.g., Janulawicz v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, at 274......
-
Coleman v. Comm'r of Corr.
...and good cause.4 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), this court set forth a definition of "good cause" in the context of § 52-470. "For the purposes of ... [ § 52-470 (e) ], good cause......
-
Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction
...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 l......
-
Mitchell v. State
...727 A.2d 213 (1999); Langston v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn.App. 528, 532-33, 197 A.3d 1034 (2018), appeal dismissed, 335 Conn. 1, 225 A.3d 282 (2020); and whether delay caused prejudice to the opposing party. See, e.g., Janulawicz v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 274-75; Hor......