Logan v. Comm'r of Correction

• Decision Date: 28 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. 30745.,30745.
• Citation: 9 A.3d 776,125 Conn.App. 744
• Parties: Charles LOGAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

9 A.3d 776

125 Conn.App. 744

Charles LOGAN

v.COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION.

No. 30745.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued Oct. 12, 2010.

Decided Dec. 28, 2010.

Sarah F. Summons, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

Timothy F. Costello, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Brenda Hans, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

DiPENTIMA, C.J., and BEAR and FOTI, Js.

DiPENTIMA, C.J.

The petitioner, Charles Logan, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court in favor of the respondent, the commissioner of correction, following the court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) improperly permitted his habeas counsel to withdraw and (3) improperly rendered judgment in favor of the respondent. We dismiss the appeal.

The following factual and procedural history is relevant to the resolution of the petitioner's appeal. The state charged the petitioner with the crimes of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, three counts of assault in the first degree and violation of probation. The petitioner entered a guilty plea, pursuant to the Alford doctrine,¹ to murder, conspiracy to commit murder and violation of probation and the court sentenced him to thirty-one years imprisonment. The petitioner did not file a direct appeal.

On September 25, 2000, the petitioner filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging the ineffective assistance of trial counsel; specifically, that counsel had failed to inform him fully of the possibility of acquittal, and thereforehis plea was not knowing, intelligent or voluntary. The petitioner also claimed that had he been informed fully of his chances of success, he would have insisted on going to trial. The habeas court concluded that the petitioner had failed to satisfy his burden of proving that his counsel's performance fell below on objective standard of reasonableness ² and denied the petition. We affirmed the judgmentof the habeas court. Logan v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn.App. 373, 374-76, 791 A.2d 638, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 911, 796 A.2d 557 (2002).

On April 5, 2006, the petitioner, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging, inter alia, that his plea bargain was not followed, his sentence was illegal and his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. On July 18, 2006, the court, Fuger, J., granted the motion for the appointment of a special public defender, attorney Tina Sypek D'Amato.

On July 6, 2007, D'Amato moved to withdraw from the case pursuant to Practice Book § 23-41.³ The petitioner filed an objection on July 17, 2007. On September 27, 2007, the court, J. Kaplan, J., issued a memorandum of decision granting D'Amato's motion and informing the petitioner that he could proceed with his petition pro se.⁴ On January 16, 2008, the petitioner filed amotion seeking the reappointment of a special public defender, which was denied by the court, Schuman, J., on January 29, 2008.

On February 28, 2008, the petitioner filed a second amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition contained six counts: The first two counts alleged a lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the third count claimed that his guilty plea was not made intelligently, the fourth count stated that his sentence was illegal, the fifth count alleged that his guilty plea was not voluntary and the sixthcount claimed that he had received ineffective assistance of his criminal trial counsel.

On June 13, 2008, the respondent, pursuant to Practice Book § 23-37, ⁵ filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to counts one through five of the petition. Three days later, the respondent moved to dismiss the sixth count pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29(3).⁶ On July 9, 2008, the petitioner also moved for summary judgment. The court, A. Santos, J., held a hearing on the pending motions on August 19, 2008. On October3, 2008, the court issued its memorandum of decision granting the respondent's motions and denying the petitioner's motion.

On October 16, 2008, the petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On his application for waiver of fees, costs and expenses and appointment of counsel on appeal form, the petitioner set forth the following as the basis for his appeal: "I the petitioner seeks [to] appeal because the court did not take into consideration my 'Alford doctrine plea' and the fact that, State v. Mack, Conn.App. The judge reads a defendant's unconditional guilty plea constitutes a waiver of his subsequent challenge to trial court's in personam jurisdiction. Petitioner challenges [whether] or not the Alford doctrine as a plea is an unconditional plea?" On January 16, 2009, Judge Santos denied the petition for certification to appeal. The court appointed counsel for the petitioner.

On January 22, 2009, the petitioner filed the present appeal. On the appeal form, counsel indicated that this appeal was taken from the "dismissal of count six of [the] petition for [a] writ of habeas corpus and granting of [the] respondent's motion for summary judgment." In his preliminary statement of issues, filed on February 2, 2009, the petitioner raised the issue of "whether the habeas court erred in allowing petitioner's appointed counsel to withdraw from representing him on his petition for [a] writ of habeas corpus."

On appeal, the petitioner argues that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. He then proceeds to the issues of whether the court improperly permitted counsel to withdraw and, as a result, improperly granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment. The respondent counters, inter alia, that the court could not have abused itsdiscretion as to the threshold issue of the denial of the petition for certification to appeal because the issue of the granting of the motion to withdraw was never presented as a basis for the petitioner's appeal. Under these specific facts and circumstances, we agree with the respondent.

Our analysis begins with the history behind the certification requirement for appeals from the denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. General Statutes § 52-470(b) provides: "No appeal from the judgment rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding brought by or on behalf of a person who has been convicted of a crimein order to obtain such person's release may be taken unless the appellant, within ten days after the case is decided, petitions the judge before whom the case was tried or, if such judge is unavailable, a judge of the Superior Court designated by the Chief Court Administrator, to certify that a question is involved in the decision which ought to be reviewed by the court having jurisdiction and the judge so certifies."

Our Supreme Court has explained that one of the goals of this statute is to limit the number of appeals filed in criminal cases and to hasten the conclusion of the criminal justice process. Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 689, 699, 699 A.2d 1003 (1997). Additionally, § 52-470(b) acts as a limitation on the scope of review, and not the jurisdiction, of the appellate tribunal. Id., at 697, 699 A.2d 1003.

We now set forth our the well established standard of review. "Faced with a habeas court's denial of a petition for certification to appeal, a petitioner can obtain appellate review of the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus only by satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated by our Supreme Court in Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 640 A.2d 601 (1994), and adopted inSimms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994). First, he must demonstrate that the denial of his petition for certification constituted an abuse of discretion.... Second, if the petitioner can show an abuse of discretion, he must then prove that the decision of the habeas court should be reversed on its merits....

"To prove an abuse of discretion, the petitioner must demonstrate that the [resolution of the underlying claim involves issues that] are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Harris v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn.App. 240, 243-44, 994 A.2d 685, cert. denied, 297 Conn. 926, 998 A.2d 1193 (2010). If this burden is not satisfied, then the claim that the judgment of the habeas court should be reversed does not qualify for consideration by this court. Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction, 73 Conn.App. 597, 598, 808 A.2d 1164 (2002), cert. denied, 262 Conn. 938, 815 A.2d 137 (2003).

In the present case, the habeas court denied the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal. Pursuant to our jurisprudence, we may reverse the habeas court's decision on the merits of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus only if we first conclude that the court abused its discretion with respect to the petition for certification to appeal. See Mitchell v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn.App. 1, 6-7, 790 A.2d 463, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 903, 793 A.2d 1089 (2002).

In Mitchell, the petitioner alleged that his trial counsel had provided him with ineffective assistance. Id., at 3, 790 A.2d 463. The habeas court denied both the petitions for a writ of habeas corpus and certification to appeal. Id., at 3-4, 790 A.2d 463. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appealby its handling of his oral request to proceed pro se at the habeas proceeding. Id., at 4, 790 A.2d 463. We noted that this issue was not part of his habeas petition but instead was raised for the first time on appeal. Id....