Ortiz v. Commissioner of Correction

• Decision Date: 28 January 2020
• Docket Number: CV184009691S
• Court: Connecticut Superior Court
• Parties: Eduardo Ortiz (Inmate #386426) v. Commissioner of Correction

Eduardo Ortiz (Inmate #386426) v. Commissioner of Correction

No. CV184009691S

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Tolland, Rockville, Geographic Area 19

January 28, 2020

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Judge (with first initial, no space for Sullivan, Dorsey, and Walsh): Chaplin, Courtney M., J.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Hon Courtney M. Chaplin, Judge

The petitioner, Eduardo Ortiz, filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 4, 2018. The respondent filed its request for an order to show cause on October 9 2019. Pursuant to Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 329 Conn. 711, 189 A.3d 578 (2018), the court held an evidentiary hearing for this matter on November 8, 2019. The petitioner presented one exhibit consisting mental health records. Thereafter, the court heard oral argument on this matter.

In the petition dated September 4, 2018, the petitioner alleges that he entered a guilty plea in 2012, and on July 27, 2012, he was sentenced to thirty-eight (38) years to serve twenty-five years of which being a mandatory minimum period of incarceration. He did not appeal his conviction. In the one-count petition, he claims ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failure to investigate an intoxication defense.

The respondent avers that the petitioner lacks good cause for filing the current petition beyond the statute of limitations set forth in General Statutes § 52-470. Specifically, the respondent argues that the petitioner entered his guilty plea to murder in violation of Connecticut General Statues § 53a-54(a) on May 31, 2012, and was sentenced to thirty-eight (38) years to serve on July 27, 2012. He filed the petition on September 4, 2018. The petitioner argues that he was delayed in filing the petition due to his mental health deficiencies. Specifically, the petitioner argues that he should not be held to the same standard as other inmates due to his mental health deficiencies. The petitioner submitted mental health and educational records to support this contention. (Exhibit 1.) For that reason, he argues that this court should find that he has demonstrated good cause to permit his current petition to proceed.

General Statutes § 52-470(c) provides, in relevant part "[T]here shall be a rebuttable presumption that the filing of a petition challenging a judgment of conviction has been delayed without good cause if such petition is filed after the later of the following: (1) Five years after the date on which the judgment of conviction is deemed to be a final judgment due to the conclusion of appellate review or the expiration of the time for seeking such review; (2) October 1, 2017 ..."

General Statutes § 52-470(e) provides: "In a case in which the rebuttable presumption of delay under subsection (c) or (d) of this section applies, the court, upon the request of the respondent, shall issue an order to show cause why the petition should be permitted to proceed. The petitioner or if applicable, the petitioner’s counsel, shall have a meaningful opportunity to investigate the basis for the delay and respond to the order. If, after such opportunity, the court finds that the petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for the delay, the court shall dismiss the petition. For the purposes of this subsection, good cause includes, but is not limited to, the discovery of new evidence which...