186 Conn. App. 332
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Petitioner Peter Boria pleaded guilty in 2009 to first‑degree robbery and being a persistent dangerous felony offender; sentenced to 20 years.
- Boria filed a habeas petition in 2011 (denied), then two petitions in 2016: one dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and this third petition challenged (1) 2013/2015 amendments to the risk reduction earned credits statute as ex post facto and (2) voluntariness of his guilty plea.
- The habeas court dismissed the ex post facto claim for lack of jurisdiction (no cognizable liberty interest in risk reduction credits) and dismissed the voluntariness claim as an improper successive petition under Practice Book §23‑29.
- On appeal, this court affirmed dismissal of the ex post facto claim and held that dismissal of the voluntariness claim was wrong on successive‑petition grounds but affirmed dismissal on the alternative ground of collateral estoppel because the factual issue (awareness of persistent offender charge) had been fully litigated and decided against Boria in the first habeas proceeding.
- The concurrence emphasized procedural concerns: the court dismissed the docketed petition sua sponte under §23‑29 without notice or an opportunity to be heard, urging greater use of the gatekeeping rule §23‑24 and preserving petitioners’ hearing rights under Mercer and Practice Book §23‑40.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court erred by dismissing ex post facto claim without a hearing | Boria: hearing required; exclusion from credits increases his sentence and violates ex post facto; no liberty interest required for ex post facto claim | Commissioner: no liberty interest in discretionary credits; dismissal without hearing was proper under §23‑29 | Court: No hearing required; dismissal proper—no liberty interest in risk reduction credits and no ex post facto violation |
| Whether amendment excluding persistent dangerous felony offenders from credits violates ex post facto | Boria: exclusion guarantees longer incarceration (affects end‑of‑sentence), so it is punitive and retroactive | Commissioner: statute vests broad discretion; petitioner had no entitlement to credits; amendment placed him where law stood at offense | Court: Amendment did not violate ex post facto; no protected interest and statute is discretionary |
| Whether habeas court properly dismissed involuntary‑plea claim as successive | Boria: plea voluntariness is a freestanding due‑process claim not raised in prior ineffective‑assistance petition | Commissioner: factual basis was litigated in prior habeas; claim precluded | Court: Dismissal as successive was incorrect, but claim barred by collateral estoppel because prior habeas actually and necessarily decided that petitioner knew of persistent‑offender charge |
| Whether court may dismiss a docketed habeas petition sua sponte under §23‑29 without notice/hearing | Boria: (via concurrence) dismissal without notice or appointed counsel violates Mercer, Practice Book §§23‑24, 23‑40 and due process | Commissioner/Majority: under controlling precedent (Holliday/Gilchrist) court may dismiss when lack of jurisdiction is plain; hearing not always required | Court: Majority follows precedent allowing summary dismissal in plain‑case jurisdictional defects; concurrence objects and urges procedural safeguards |
Key Cases Cited
- Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357 (Sup. Ct.) (no liberty interest in discretionary risk reduction credits)
- Holliday v. Commissioner of Correction, 184 Conn. App. 228 (App. Ct.) (habeas court may dismiss ex post facto risk‑credit claims for lack of jurisdiction and need not always hold a hearing)
- Mercer v. Commissioner of Correction, 230 Conn. 88 (Sup. Ct.) (strong presumption that habeas petitioners are entitled to an evidentiary hearing absent explicit rule authorizing summary dismissal)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 168 Conn. App. 294 (App. Ct.) (affirming dismissal on collateral estoppel grounds where earlier habeas fully litigated the determinative factual issue)
- Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction, 180 Conn. App. 56 (App. Ct.) (affirming sua sponte dismissal under §23‑29; granted cert. by Sup. Ct.)
- Negron v. Warden, 180 Conn. 153 (Sup. Ct.) (narrow rule permitting dismissal of successive habeas petitions without a hearing when no new facts or evidence are offered)