Cookish v. Commissioner of Correction, 337 Conn. 348

Background

In ~1974 Cookish pled guilty to first‑degree unlawful sexual contact and was sentenced; his sentence expired by ~1980.
In November 2018 Cookish (self‑represented) filed a habeas petition seeking to withdraw/vacate the plea; he requested counsel and a fee waiver.
A clerk administratively granted the fee waiver but did not act on the counsel request; the habeas court, sua sponte and without notice or a hearing, dismissed the petition under Practice Book § 23‑29(1) for lack of jurisdiction (petitioner not in custody) and ordered the petition returned.
The habeas court denied certification to appeal; Cookish appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which treated the matter under the framework set out in Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction.
The Supreme Court held the court correctly found lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction but erred in dismissing under § 23‑29 instead of declining to issue the writ under § 23‑24; it reversed and directed the habeas court to decline to issue the writ.
The Court also ruled Cookish was not entitled to appointment of counsel, notice, or a hearing in connection with a decision to decline the writ, and his coram nobis argument failed as untimely.

Issues

Issue	Cookish's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Practice Book § 23‑29 without appointing counsel or providing notice/hearing was improper	Court should not have dismissed without appointing counsel and offering hearing	Dismissal was proper because court lacked jurisdiction	Court: jurisdictional defect existed, but proper procedure was to decline issuance of the writ under § 23‑24; no appointment, notice, or hearing required when writ is declined
Whether administrative fee‑waiver implied the court granted appointment of counsel or issued the writ	Fee waiver grant (signed on form) meant counsel was appointed and procedural protections applied	Clerk’s fee‑waiver alone did not equate to appointment of counsel or issuance of writ	Court: administrative fee waiver does not transform a patently defective petition into one invoking § 23‑29 procedures; no counsel appointed prior to dismissal
Whether the petition should be treated as a writ of error coram nobis	Petition should be construed as coram nobis because it sought vacatur based on new facts unknown at trial	Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain coram nobis due to three‑year limitation	Court: coram nobis unavailable—even if construed as such, it was untimely (filed decades after conviction)
Whether plain error review requires reversal of the dismissal	Court’s procedural error was obvious and warrants reversal	Any procedural error was not plain or obvious given confusion in precedent	Court: plain error doctrine does not apply—the error was not obvious in light of pre‑Gilchrist uncertainty

Key Cases Cited

Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction, 334 Conn. 548 (2020) (clarified preliminary habeas procedure: decline issuance under § 23‑24 when petition is patently defective; otherwise issue writ and then follow § 23‑29)
Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction, 332 Conn. 615 (2019) (standards for demonstrating habeas court abuse of discretion in denying certification to appeal)
Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, 324 Conn. 548 (2017) (plenary review applies to dismissals under Practice Book § 23‑29)
State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356 (2009) (explaining coram nobis remedy and three‑year limitation)
State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (2017) (plain error doctrine standards)