Woods v. Comm'r of Corr.

Citation232 A.3d 63,197 Conn.App. 597
Decision Date02 June 2020
Docket NumberAC 41987
CourtAppellate Court of Connecticut
Parties Jermaine WOODS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

Vishal K. Garg, West Hartford, for the appellant (petitioner).

Nancy L. Walker, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Eva B. Lenczewski, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

Lavine, Alvord and Keller, Js.

LAVINE, J.

The petitioner, Jermaine Woods, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 The habeas court denied the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court (1) abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal, (2) abused its discretion by dismissing his petition without fair notice to him and without holding a hearing on his petition, (3) erred by dismissing count one of his petition alleging that his conviction was illegal because (a) evidence of his diminished capacity was not properly presented at his criminal trial and sentencing and (b) mitigating circumstances warrant reduction of his sentence, and (4) erred by dismissing count two of his petition alleging violation of his constitutional right to equal protection. We dismiss the appeal.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the petitioner's appeal. Given the lengthy history of court proceedings and judicial rulings, a detailed discussion is required. In the underlying criminal matter, the petitioner was charged with murder for fatally shooting Jamal Hall on November 5, 1994. The charge against the petitioner was tried to a jury in December, 1996, but the jury was unable to reach a verdict and a mistrial was declared. The petitioner was retried in January, 1997, and a jury convicted him of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a).2 The petitioner was sentenced to fifty years imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed in State v. Woods , 250 Conn. 807, 740 A.2d 371 (1999).3

The petitioner thereafter filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to prepare an adequate diminished mental capacity defense and that he was actually innocent. See Woods v. Commissioner of Correction , 85 Conn. App. 544, 545 n.1, 857 A.2d 986, cert. denied, 272 Conn. 903, 863 A.2d 696 (2004). The first habeas court, Hon. Richard M. Rittenband , judge trial referee, denied the petition as to the petitioner's actual innocence claim, but granted it with respect to his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective in presenting evidence of the petitioner's diminished capacity. The first habeas court, therefore, granted in part the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and ordered a new trial.4 Id. The judgment granting the habeas petition was upheld on appeal; id., at 545, 857 A.2d 986 ; and the petitioner elected to be tried by a panel of three judges. State v. Woods , 297 Conn. 569, 572, 4 A.3d 236 (2010). At the petitioner's third criminal trial, the three judge panel convicted him of murder and sentenced him to fifty years imprisonment.5 Id. The petitioner's conviction again was upheld on direct appeal.6 Id.

The petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus on November 4, 2008, alleging various claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel during the third criminal trial, including a claim that the trial counsel failed to timely notify and to adequately prepare the petitioner's expert witness, John H. Felber, a psychiatrist, to testify.7 The second habeas court, T. Santos, J. , denied the second habeas petition. This court upheld the judgment denying the second petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a memorandum decision. Woods v. Commissioner of Correction , 142 Conn. App. 907, 64 A.3d 1290, cert. denied, 309 Conn. 915, 70 A.3d 39 (2013).8

The petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus on July 16, 2013, alleging in count one that his sentence is illegal because evidence of his diminished capacity and mitigating circumstances were not considered at trial and, in count two, that his equal protection rights were violated. In his January 5, 2018 return, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, alleged multiple special defenses to the petitioner's claims.

On March 9, 2018, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition pursuant to Practice Book § 23-299 on the grounds that the petitioner's claims are precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, are procedurally defaulted in that they were not raised at trial or on direct appeal, and failed to state claims for which habeas relief can be granted. The petitioner filed an objection to the motion to dismiss on March 21, 2018.

The third habeas court, Kwak, J. , granted the respondent's motion to dismiss in a memorandum of decision on July 16, 2018. With respect to the petitioner's claim that evidence of his diminished capacity was not properly presented during trial, the court determined that evidence of the petitioner's diminished capacity was presented at the petitioner's third criminal and second habeas trials. Moreover, the court found that the petitioner was seeking the same relief in both his second and third petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that the claim concerning the petitioner's diminished capacity was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel.

The habeas court also found that the petitioner alleged that his sentence was illegal because the sentencing court did not consider evidence of mitigating circumstances prior to imposing sentence. The habeas court found that the petitioner, who was nineteen at the time of the murder, was seeking an individualized sentencing hearing, but determined that the petitioner was not entitled to such a hearing. The court, therefore, concluded that the petitioner's sentence could not be determined to be illegal on the ground alleged and that there was no habeas corpus relief the court could grant. The habeas court also found that the respondent sought to have the mitigating circumstances claim dismissed on the ground of procedural default because the petitioner did not raise it at trial or on direct appeal. The court found that the petitioner failed to allege any new facts or allege any legally cognizable cause and prejudice to rebut his procedural default, citing Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction , 114 Conn. App. 778, 788, 971 A.2d 766, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 915, 979 A.2d 488 (2009). See id. ( Practice Book § 23-31 (c) requires petitioner to allege facts and cause and prejudice permitting review). The court thus dismissed the allegations of mitigating circumstances as a basis to reduce the petitioner's sentence.

In count two of the third petition, the habeas court found that the petitioner alleged that his rights under the equal protection clause were violated by the state's decision to try him after his first petition for a writ of habeas corpus was granted. More particularly, the petitioner alleged that "Waterbury Chief State's Attorney John Connelly resigned on January 14, 2011, after a federal investigation was launched against him and his longtime friend defense attorney Martin Minella for corruption." He also alleged that Connelly provided favorable treatment to Minella's clients. The petitioner further alleged that he was unable to afford to retain Minella but, if he had retained him, Connelly would have disposed of the petitioner's case and not tried him for a third time. The respondent sought to have the claim dismissed on the ground of procedural default because the petitioner failed to raise this improbable claim in the trial court or on direct appeal. The court found that the petitioner had failed to meet the cause and prejudice standard to overcome the bar of procedural default. The court, therefore, dismissed count two of the petitioner's third petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the court denied. The petitioner appealed.

ICERTIFICATION TO APPEAL

The petitioner's first claim is that the court abused its discretion by denying his petition for certification to appeal from the court's judgment dismissing his third petition for a writ of habeas corpus because his appeal is not frivolous. "Faced with the habeas court's denial of certification to appeal, a petitioner's first burden is to demonstrate that the habeas court's ruling constituted an abuse of discretion. ... A petitioner may establish an abuse of discretion by demonstrating that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason ... [the] court could resolve the issues [in a different manner] ... or ... the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. ... The required determination may be made on the basis of the record before the habeas court and the applicable legal principles. ...

"In determining whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's request for certification, we necessarily must consider the merits of the petitioner's underlying claims to determine whether the habeas court reasonably determined that the petitioner's appeal was frivolous. In other words, we review the petitioner's substantive claims for the purpose of ascertaining whether those claims satisfy one or more of the three criteria ... adopted by this court for determining the propriety of the habeas court's denial of the petition for certification. Absent such a showing by the petitioner, the judgment of the habeas court must be affirmed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mourning v. Commissioner of Correction , 169 Conn. App. 444, 448, 150 A.3d 1166 (2016), cert. denied, 324 Conn. 908, 152 A.3d 1246 (2017). On the basis of our review of the petitioner's substantive claims as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Tatum v. Commissioner of Correction
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2022
  • Sanchez v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 2021
    ...385 (2016). This court has repeatedly affirmed habeas court rulings on alternative grounds. See, e.g., Woods v. Commissioner of Correction , 197 Conn. App. 597, 627–28, 232 A.3d 63 (2020) ; Boria v. Commissioner of Correction , 186 Conn. App. 332, 348, 199 A.3d 1127 (2018), cert. granted, 3......
  • Wright v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • November 17, 2020
  • Tatum v. Comm'r of Corr.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 8, 2022
    ... ... actually have been raised and litigated in an earlier ... proceeding.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) ... Woods v. Commissioner of Correction , 197 Conn.App ... 597, 612-13, 232 A.3d 63 (2020), appeal dismissed, 341 Conn ... 506, A.3d (2021) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT