Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 148 Conn. App. 641

Fred Anderson was convicted after a jury trial of first‑degree unlawful restraint, first‑degree assault with intent to disfigure, and interfering with an officer; effective sentence 16 years. His direct appeal was affirmed.
Anderson filed three successive state habeas petitions alleging prosecutorial impropriety and ineffective assistance of counsel (trial, appellate, and prior habeas counsel). The first and second habeas petitions were litigated and denied; appeals were resolved or withdrawn.
Anderson’s third amended habeas petition (filed Feb. 9, 2010) included seven counts; count three alleged relief based on the cumulative effect of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. The Commissioner moved to dismiss prior to trial.
The third habeas court (Cobb, J.) granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss count three, concluding it failed to state a claim and was barred by res judicata; the court certified the dismissal for appeal and appointed counsel.
Anderson appealed only the dismissal of count three; he did not challenge dismissal as to counts one, two, and four through seven.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a habeas petitioner may obtain relief based on cumulative error	Anderson urged Connecticut should permit a cumulative‑error constitutional claim despite prior Connecticut precedent rejecting it	Commissioner relied on controlling Connecticut Supreme Court and Appellate Court precedent refusing to recognize cumulative‑error claims	Court held cumulative‑error claims are not recognized in Connecticut and dismissed count three for failure to state a claim
Whether count three is barred by res judicata	Anderson argued the claim differs from issues litigated in his first habeas and that the first habeas did not find the trial entirely free of error	Commissioner argued the alleged prosecutorial misconduct in count three was the same as prior habeas claims and thus previously litigated or could have been raised	Court held the prosecutorial‑misconduct allegations were repetitive of the first habeas petition; res judicata bars review

State v. Tillman, 220 Conn. 487, 600 A.2d 738 (1991) (Connecticut Supreme Court rejected creation of a cumulative‑error constitutional claim)
State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 864 A.2d 666 (2004) (reaffirming refusal to aggregate non‑constitutional errors into a new constitutional claim)
State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711, 631 A.2d 288 (1993) (precedent rejecting cumulative‑error doctrine)
Cannizzaro v. Marinyak, 139 Conn. App. 722, 57 A.3d 830 (2012) (Appellate Court explaining lower courts are bound by Supreme Court precedent)
Stuart v. Stuart, 297 Conn. 26, 996 A.2d 259 (2010) (noting hierarchical obligation of Appellate Court to follow Supreme Court law)
Campbell v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 576, 997 A.2d 543 (2010) (describing res judicata limits in habeas context and exceptions for new facts/evidence)
Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 95 Conn. App. 901, 895 A.2d 872 (2006) (prior appellate disposition of Anderson’s first habeas petition)
Gaines v. Kelly, 202 F.3d 598 (2d Cir. 2000) (illustrative Second Circuit authority recognizing potential for cumulative‑effect due process claims)