Correction (Boria v. Commissioner of), 345 Conn. 39

Peter Boria pleaded guilty in 2009 to first‑degree robbery and being a persistent dangerous felony offender and received a 20‑year sentence.
He filed multiple habeas petitions: a 2011 petition alleging ineffective assistance (denied), a 2016 petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Practice Book §23‑24, and a 2016 third petition (the subject here) raising: involuntariness of plea, breach of plea bargain, ineffective assistance, and an ex post facto challenge to amendments to the earned risk reduction credit statutes (P.A.13‑3 and P.A.15‑216).
The habeas court dismissed the third petition sua sponte, without prior notice, under Practice Book §23‑29: it dismissed the ex post facto claim for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (§23‑29(1)) and the remaining claims as repetitious (§23‑29(3)).
The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal. The Connecticut Supreme Court heard this companion case to Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, which raised identical procedural questions.
The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court, held that dismissals under Practice Book §23‑29 require prior notice and an opportunity to respond, and remanded for the habeas court to first consider whether to issue the writ under §23‑24; if the court again dismisses under §23‑29, it must give notice and allow a response.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a habeas court may dismiss sua sponte under Practice Book §23‑29 without prior notice and opportunity to respond	Boria: §23‑29 dismissals require prior notice and chance to respond	State: court may dismiss sua sponte under §23‑29 without prior notice	Court: Notice and opportunity to respond are required; reversal and remand (per Brown)
Whether the habeas court must consider whether to issue the writ under Practice Book §23‑24 before dismissing	Boria: court must apply §23‑24 criteria first	State: dismissal under §23‑29 may be proper without prior §23‑24 resolution	Court: Remanded for the habeas court to decide §23‑24 first before disposing of the petition
Whether the habeas court lacked subject‑matter jurisdiction over the ex post facto challenge to the amended risk reduction statutes	Boria: statutes violate ex post facto and court has jurisdiction to hear claim	State: court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the ex post facto claim	Court: Jurisdictional question not finally resolved—remanded for §23‑24 consideration and further proceedings
Whether the remaining claims were properly dismissed as repetitious under §23‑29(3)	Boria: claims should be considered on the merits or after proper notice	State: claims are repetitious of prior petitions and dismissible	Court: Not finally resolved; if dismissed again under §23‑29, petitioner must receive notice and an opportunity to respond

Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2022) (controls here; requires notice and opportunity before dismissal under Practice Book §23‑29)
Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction, 334 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2020) (requires consideration of Practice Book §23‑24 criteria before declining to issue writ)
Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 186 Conn. App. 332 (Conn. App. 2018) (Appellate Court opinion affirming habeas court's §23‑29 dismissal)