Barlow v. Comm'r of Corr., 328 Conn. 610

Alison Barlow filed a habeas petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining; the habeas court originally denied relief on remand after an Appellate Court decision (Barlow I).
The Commissioner of Correction sought review; the Appellate Court (Barlow II) reversed the habeas court’s rulings, concluding (1) § 51-183c required recusal of the original habeas judge on remand and (2) the petitioner could introduce new evidence on prejudice on remand.
The Commissioner petitioned the Connecticut Supreme Court for certification on two limited questions about the application of General Statutes § 51-183c and the admissibility of new evidence on remand.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted, finding the issues to be fact- and posture-specific and not suitable for broad resolution.
The Court nonetheless deferred to the Appellate Court’s interpretation of its own remand (that it was effectively a remand for a new trial, triggering § 51-183c recusal), and emphasized the need for clarity in appellate rescripts to avoid disputes under § 51-183c.
The Court explained that a reviewing court can avoid triggering § 51-183c by leaving the original judgment undisturbed and remanding only for further factual findings; courts should craft rescripts mindful of this distinction.

Issue	Barlow's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether § 51-183c required recusal of the original habeas judge on remand	Appellate remand amounted to a new trial/remand for new trial, so § 51-183c required a different judge	The remand did not amount to a new trial, so recusal was not required	Court dismissed appeal as improvidently granted; deferred to Appellate Court’s construction that the remand was like a new trial triggering § 51-183c (express no definitive ruling)
Whether petitioner could present new evidence of prejudice on remand	Remand allowed admission of new evidence to prove prejudice under Strickland	Remand was limited; habeas court should decide based on existing record only	Court dismissed appeal; deferred to Appellate Court’s conclusion that new evidence was permissible on the remand as construed by that court

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (established two-part ineffective assistance test)
State v. Carter, 320 Conn. 564 (Conn. 2016) (dismissal after improvident certification; deference to Appellate Court opinions)
State v. Brundage, 320 Conn. 740 (Conn. 2016) (interpretation of judgments is a question of law reviewed plenarily)
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn. App. 781 (Conn. App. 2014) (Barlow I) (Appellate Court decision prompting remand)
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 166 Conn. App. 408 (Conn. App. 2016) (Barlow II) (Appellate Court held recusal required and new evidence permitted)
State v. Gonzales, 186 Conn. 426 (Conn. 1982) (distinguishing remands that do not disturb judgment and thus do not trigger § 51-183c)