Fenner v. Commissioner of Correction
206 Conn. App. 488
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2021Background:
- In December 2009 Fenner pleaded guilty to murder and risk of injury to a child and was sentenced to an effective 50-year term; he did not file a direct appeal.
- Fenner (pro se at filing) submitted a habeas petition on October 6, 2017 — after the statutory timeliness cutoffs — triggering the rebuttable presumption of unjustified delay under § 52-470(c).
- The Commissioner requested, under § 52-470(e), an order to show cause; an evidentiary (show-cause) hearing was held March 15, 2019, where only Fenner testified.
- Fenner testified he was unaware of filing deadlines and that in late 2016 his son told him defense counsel never contacted the son, prompting concerns about counsel’s adequacy and inducing Fenner to file habeas in 2017.
- The habeas court found Fenner’s proffered reasons insufficient to rebut the presumption of delay, dis- missed the petition as untimely, and denied certification to appeal.
- Fenner appealed the denial of certification; the Appellate Court held he failed to show good cause or preserve a mental-health claim and dismissed the appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Fenner's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fenner established good cause to overcome § 52-470(c) presumption of untimeliness | Fenner argued his late filing was justified by ignorance of deadlines and newly learned facts from his son about counsel | Commissioner argued petition was late, Fenner presumed to know law, and he presented no newly discovered evidence or diligence | Court held Fenner failed to rebut presumption; no good cause shown and denial of certification not an abuse of discretion |
| Validity of ignorance-of-law defense to timeliness | Fenner said he did not know habeas filing deadlines and would have filed earlier if he had | Commissioner: ignorance of law is no excuse; petitioner is charged with knowledge and court found his claim not credible | Court rejected ignorance claim (presumption of legal knowledge and adverse credibility finding) |
| Newly discovered information via son about counsel contact (diligence inquiry) | Fenner said son’s late-2016 statement raised concerns about counsel’s conduct and induced filing | Commissioner: Fenner had until Oct. 1, 2017 and gave no explanation for six months of inaction; no new-evidence showing or diligence | Court held the son’s statement, without explanation for delay in capitalizing on it, did not establish good cause |
| Raising mental-health/medication as a basis for good cause on appeal | Fenner argued on appeal he had mental-health/medication issues around the time he filed that justify delay | Commissioner noted this claim was not raised at the show-cause hearing or in the certification petition | Court declined to consider it (issue not preserved); appellate review refused; denial of certification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Crespo v. Commissioner of Correction, 292 Conn. 804 (Conn. 2009) (standard for showing abuse of discretion in denial of certification to appeal)
- Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 329 Conn. 711 (Conn. 2018) (purpose and operation of § 52-470 to ensure prompt habeas resolution)
- Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, 324 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2017) (2012 amendments to § 52-470 intended to limit frivolous habeas filings)
- Langston v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 528 (Conn. App. 2020) (definition of good cause as a substantial legal excuse)
- Bowens v. Commissioner of Correction, 333 Conn. 502 (Conn. 2019) (trial court’s exclusive prerogative to assess witness credibility)
- Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction, 202 Conn. App. 563 (Conn. App. 2021) (presumption that everyone knows the law applies to timeliness defenses)
- Tutson v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 203 (Conn. App. 2013) (issues not raised before the habeas court or in the certification petition will not be considered on appeal)