State v. Brown
| Decision Date | 09 January 1969 |
| Citation | 157 Conn. 398,254 A.2d 570 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Chester BROWN. |
Igor I. Sikorsky, Jr., Special Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Arlen D. Nickowitz, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Otto J. Saur, State's Attorney, for appellee (state).
Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.
On September 29, 1961, upon a trial to the jury, the defendant was found guilty of the crime of rape. Thereafter he pleaded guilty to the second part of the information wherein he was charged with being an habitual criminal under § 54-121 of the General Statutes and was sentenced to the state prison. On March 10, 1965, the defendant filed a petition in the Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus against the warden of the state prison, alleging that he did not appeal from the judgment of conviction because his attorney refused to continue his services to prosecute an appeal and because no counsel was assigned to him to prosecute the appeal. He also alleged that he was illegally confined and that his conviction under the habitual criminal statute was based on an invalid conviction obtained in the state of Maine. On June 10, 1965, following a hearing on the habeas corpus petition, the court (Dube, J.) found the issues for the defendant warden and rendered judgment denying the petition with the following addendum: 'but the plaintiff is granted the right to appeal his criminal case.' On June 21, 1965, pursuant to § 52-470 of the General Statutes, the defendant filed a request for the certification of his appeal from the judgment denying his petition. On June 23, 1965, this request was denied. Later, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the district of Connecticut. On June 1, 1966, that court rendered judgment sustaining the claim of the defendant that one of his prior convictions was secured in violation of his constitutional rights and ordering that he be resentenced by the Superior Court upon his conviction of September 29, 1961, as if he were a first felony offender. On June 3, 1966, the defendant was resentenced in accordance with the judgment of the United States District Court. On June 21, 1967, the defendant's motions that counsel be appointed to represent him and that he be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis were granted, and, on the same day, the defendant filed a notice of intention to appeal 'pursuant to the order of the Honorable Judge Norman Dube entered June 10, 1965.' The notice of appeal was filed more than two years after the date of this order. Thereafter, the appeal to this court was filed.
The record in this case indicates that the defendant's notice of appeal to this court was filed five years and nine months after final judgment was rendered in the Superior Court. Howarth v. Northcott, 152 Conn. 460, 462, 208 A.2d 540, 542. Obviously, the two-week period provided for filing an appeal by § 378 of the 1951 Practice Book (now twenty days as provided in Practice Book, 1963, § 601, as amended) had expired, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that there was any attempt made by the defendant to take an appeal within the time limited by our rule. This appeal is predicated upon the judgment of the Superior Court (Dube, J.) in the habeas corpus action dated June 10, 1965, wherein the court found the issues for the defendant warden and denied the defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but purported to grant the defendant the right to a late appeal in his criminal case.
There are two situations in which the trial court or a judge thereof is authorized to allow an appeal subsequent to the expiration of the time limited by the rule. The first is where, under the provisions of § 413 of the 1951 Practice Book (now Practice Book, 1963, § 665), the court or a judge thereof grants an extension of time for the filing or the perfecting of an appeal. More v. Urbano, 150 Conn. 687, 688, 185 A.2d 475. The only other situation in which this court has approved the action of a trial court or a judge thereof in allowing an appeal after the period provided under the rule has elapsed without the granting of proper extensions of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...added language purportedly granting him a right to appeal from his conviction. An appeal was thereafter taken and in State v. Brown, 157 Conn. 398, 254 A.2d 570, this court dismissed the appeal on the ground that because the trial court had dismissed the habeas corpus petition it lacked aut......
-
State v. Phidd
...recent than State v. Stead, supra, 186 Conn. 222, 440 A.2d 299; LaReau v. Reincke, supra, 158 Conn. 486, 264 A.2d 576; State v. Brown, 157 Conn. 398, 254 A.2d 570 (1969); and Fredericks v. Reincke, supra, 152 Conn. at 503, 208 A.2d 756, allow a late appeal. State v. Stead, supra, at 226 n. ......
-
McClain v. Manson
...case. Fay v. Noia, supra, 372 U.S. 440, 83 S.Ct. 849; Blue v. Robinson, 173 Conn. 360, 370, 377 A.2d 1108 (1977); State v. Brown, 157 Conn. 398, 402, 254 A.2d 570 (1969); Vena v. Warden, 154 Conn. 363, 366, 225 A.2d 802 (1966). The burden of alleging and proving facts necessary to demonstra......
-
Brown v. Adams
...by the state Supreme Court in 1969 on the ground that the trial court was without authority to grant a late appeal. State v. Brown, 157 Conn. 398, 254 A.2d 570 (1969). The dismissal was without prejudice to Brown to seek by state habeas corpus a determination that he was unconstitutionally ......