Dull v. Commissioner of Correction
167 A.3d 466
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Nathan Dull was convicted of murder in 1998 after a trial before a three-judge panel; conviction affirmed on direct appeal.
- Dull filed a first habeas petition in 2002; it was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal.
- A second habeas petition was filed in 2010 and withdrawn in 2011.
- Dull filed a third habeas petition on June 11, 2015, after the 2012 amendments (P.A. 12-115) to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470 had taken effect and after October 1, 2014.
- The respondent moved for an order to show cause under § 52-470(e) because the third petition fell within the statutory rebuttable presumption of untimeliness.
- At the show-cause hearing Dull claimed mental-health problems excused the delay; the habeas court found he failed to prove good cause and dismissed the petition. Dull appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dull showed "good cause" to overcome the § 52-470(d) rebuttable presumption of untimeliness for a subsequent habeas petition | Dull: mental-health impairment prevented timely filing and thus constitutes good cause | Commissioner: petition was filed after the statutory cutoff; Dull did not prove mental impairment prevented timely filing | Court: affirmed dismissal — Dull failed to demonstrate good cause |
| Whether § 52-470(d) applies when a prior intervening petition was withdrawn | Dull: prior withdrawn petition should affect timeliness analysis (argued implicitly) | Commissioner: withdrawal is not a judgment and does not affect the two-year presumption trigger | Court: follows statutory text — withdrawal does not constitute a judgment; statute applies |
| Whether the habeas court gave petitioner adequate opportunity to respond under § 52-470(e) | Dull: contended he had opportunity and presented testimony | Commissioner: order to show cause and hearing satisfied statutory requirements | Court: found procedure complied with § 52-470(e) and petitioner had meaningful opportunity |
| Standard of review for dismissal under § 52-470 | Dull: challenged legal conclusion | Commissioner: dismissal is reviewed de novo | Court: applied plenary review and found no error in dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dull, 59 Conn. App. 579 (Conn. App. 2000) (affirming the conviction after trial)
- Dull v. Commissioner of Correction, 96 Conn. App. 787 (Conn. App. 2006) (affirming denial of first habeas petition)
- Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 148 Conn. App. 641 (Conn. App. 2014) (noting dismissal of habeas petition is reviewed as a question of law)