215 Conn.App. 99
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Coney was convicted of murder and weapons possession; conviction affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Coney.
- He filed multiple habeas petitions: first (2004) denied; second (2010) withdrawn; third filed June 1, 2012, scheduled for trial Jan 12, 2015.
- Shortly before the third-petition trial, counsel said a key witness was unreachable and advised withdrawing the petition to refile later; petitioner withdrew the third petition on Jan 6, 2015.
- Petitioner filed a fourth habeas petition on Jan 20, 2015; because it was filed after the statutory deadlines (including Oct. 1, 2014), the trial court issued an order to show cause under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470(e).
- At the show-cause hearing the petitioner testified that counsel never explained § 52-470(d) or sought a continuance; the habeas court found no good cause and dismissed the fourth petition; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fourth petition is untimely under § 52-470(d) and subject to dismissal | Fourth petition untimely but good cause exists to overcome statutory presumption | Petition is presumptively untimely; respondent requested dismissal unless good cause shown | Petition was presumptively untimely; dismissal proper absent good cause |
| Whether prior habeas counsel's erroneous advice to withdraw the third petition constitutes "good cause" | Coney: counsel’s advice to withdraw (due to missing witness) and counsel’s failure to explain § 52-470(d) = good cause | Commissioner: attorney error/neglect does not constitute external good cause | Court: poor legal advice, standing alone, is not good cause; petitioner and counsel bore responsibility |
| Whether the witness’s unavailability was an external factor excusing delay | The missing key witness was beyond petitioner’s control and justified withdrawal and refiling | Respondent: petitioner/counsel could have sought continuance or other relief; they bear responsibility | Court: witness issue did not qualify as external cause because neither petitioner nor counsel sought less drastic remedies |
| Whether petitioner’s or counsel’s ignorance of the law (post-2012 amendments) establishes good cause under Kelsey | Lack of knowledge of the deadline should be considered good cause | Kelsey permits consideration of ignorance but does not make it dispositive; must assess externality/responsibility | Court: Kelsey does not compel relief here; ignorance alone insufficient; no abuse of discretion in denying good cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 424 (Supreme Court 2022) (defines "good cause" factors for rebutting § 52-470 delay presumption)
- Michael G. v. Commissioner of Correction, 214 Conn. App. 358 (Conn. App. 2022) (attorney advice to withdraw a timely petition, without more, does not establish good cause)
- Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124 (Supreme Court 1993) (good cause must be external to the defense)
- Langston v. Commissioner of Correction, 335 Conn. 1 (Supreme Court 2020) (relevant post-amendment habeas timeliness jurisprudence consulted during appellate process)
- State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787 (Supreme Court 2003) (underlying criminal conviction affirmed)