Ortiz v. Comm'r of Corr.
Decision Date | 22 March 2022 |
Docket Number | AC 44047 |
Citation | 211 Conn.App. 378,272 A.3d 692 |
Parties | Eduardo ORTIZ, Jr. v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Naomi T. Fetterman, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was David J. Reich, for the appellant (petitioner).
Sarah Hanna, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Eva Lenczewski, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).
Elgo, Suarez and Vertefeuille, Js.
Following the denial of his petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner, Eduardo Ortiz, Jr., appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and erred in its determination that he failed to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under General Statutes § 52-470 (e). Our examination of the record and briefs and consideration of the oral arguments of the parties persuades us that the habeas court acted properly and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.
The following procedural history is relevant to our analysis. On May 31, 2012, before the trial court, Damiani, J ., the petitioner pleaded guilty to murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. On July 27, 2012, the trial court, Prescott, J ., sentenced the petitioner to serve thirty-eight years of incarceration. The petitioner did not bring a direct appeal. On September 4, 2018, the petitioner, for the first time, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus related to the conviction in which he alleged that the public defender who represented him during the criminal proceedings, Tashaun Lewis, had not rendered effective assistance in that she failed to adequately investigate matters concerning the case. The petitioner filed the petition in a self-represented capacity.
On October 9, 2019, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, filed a request for order to show cause for the petitioner's delay in filing the habeas petition. Specifically, the respondent argued that, pursuant to § 52-470 (c),1 a rebuttable presumption arose that the habeas petition challenging the conviction had been delayed without good cause because it was filed more than six years after the judgment of conviction became final and after October 1, 2017. The respondent, therefore, sought an order, pursuant to § 52-470 (e),2 to show cause why the untimely petition should be permitted to proceed.
On November 8, 2019, the habeas court, Chaplin, J ., held a hearing on the respondent's request. At the hearing, the petitioner, then represented by counsel, attempted to demonstrate good cause for the untimely filing. Specifically, the petitioner sought to prove that he filed the habeas petition late because of his "mental health issues and his cognitive disabilities ...." The petitioner relied exclusively on health and educational records that were dated between 2005 and 2011, and which were admitted as a sealed exhibit.3 Relying on these records, the petitioner's attorney argued that it would be unfair to hold the petitioner to the statutory filing deadlines in this action.
Counsel for the respondent replied that the petitioner's health and educational records, which she had reviewed, were generated many years prior to the hearing and, more importantly, they did not specifically address the issue of whether any mental health issue affected the petitioner's ability "to comply with the rules [related to filing a habeas petition in a timely manner]." Counsel for the respondent argued that, in the absence of additional evidence, the petitioner had not demonstrated that a mental health issue led to an inability to file his petition in a timely manner.
The petitioner's counsel, acknowledging that he had not provided the court with recent assessments of the petitioner's mental condition, nonetheless argued that the records revealed deficiencies that began early in the petitioner's life, stated that he had provided the court with "the full mental health history" of the petitioner, and reasoned that "it's not like he's gotten better, if anything he's deteriorated."
On January 28, 2020, the court dismissed the habeas petition. In its memorandum of decision, the court discussed the relevant procedural history and legal principles that applied to the issue before it. The court then stated: (Citation omitted; footnote omitted.)
On appeal, the petitioner essentially argues that the court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal because he successfully demonstrated at the hearing that good cause existed for the late filing of the habeas petition. The petitioner argues that the evidence he presented to the court demonstrated that he suffers from lifelong mental health issues that impaired his ability to file a habeas petition in a timely manner. The petitioner argues that he The petitioner extrapolates from the evidence that The petitioner appears to argue that the court did not appropriately gauge the severity of his mental health issues and their detrimental effect on his ability to file a habeas petition in a timely manner.
The respondent argues that On the basis of its findings, the court dismissed the petition and subsequently denied the petition for certification to appeal.
Although they are in agreement with respect to the standard of review that applies to the court's denial of the petition for certification to appeal, the parties have presented this court with diverging legal arguments concerning the standard of review that applies to the subordinate issue of whether the court properly determined that good cause was not shown for the late petition. The respondent urges us to apply the abuse of discretion standard, and the petitioner urges us to apply the plenary standard of review.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ricardo R. v. Commissioner of Correction , 185 Conn. App. 787, 794, 198 A.3d 630 (2018), cert. denied, 330 Conn. 959, 199 A.3d 560 (2019).
"[T]o rebut successfully the presumption of unreasonable delay in § 52-470, a petitioner generally will be required to demonstrate that something outside of the control of the petitioner or habeas counsel caused or contributed to the delay ." (Emphasis added.) Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction , 202 Conn. App. 21, 34, 244 A.3d 171 (2020), cert. granted, 336...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Kellogg v. Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co.
-
Felder v. Comm'r of Corr.
... ... any ambiguity in the statutory language was good cause for ... his late filing. See, e.g., Ortiz v ... Commissioner of Correction, 211 Conn.App. 378, ... 388-89, 272 A.3d 692 (when petitioner presented evidence of ... mental ... ...
-
Canales v. Comm'r of Corr.
...contributed to the delay in filing [her] ... habeas petition." Id., at 153, 247 A.3d 579 ; see also, e.g., Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction , 211 Conn. App. 378, 389, 272 A.3d 692 (because petitioner failed to demonstrate connection between mental health deficiency and late filing of pet......
-
Pennymac Corp. v. Tarzia
...this court is binding precedent on this court." (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction , 211 Conn. App. 378, 386 n.4, 272 A.3d 692 (2022).11 We note that "where a jurisdictional determination is dependent on the resolution of a critical fac......