Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction
139 Conn. App. 173
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Petitioner Luis Fernandez was convicted on drug offenses in 2001, receiving an effective 28-year sentence.
- In 2001 Fernandez was charged with assault in the second degree; he pled guilty in 2002 to assault, receiving a one-year concurrent sentence.
- The assault sentence finished by September 30, 2003.
- A 2008 FOIA letter from the Board of Pardons and Paroles discussed parole timelines and 85% eligibility.
- Fernandez filed a habeas petition on February 25, 2009 challenging the assault conviction; amended petition filed January 7, 2011.
- The habeas court dismissed the petition for lack of custody, granted certification to appeal, and this court affirmed.]
- The appellate analysis focused on whether Fernandez was in custody for the assault conviction at filing or whether the Garlotte exception applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner was in custody for the assault conviction under §52-466 at filing. | Fernandez argues present restraint from parole rules kept him in custody. | Commissioner contends collateral consequences do not create custody; assault expired. | No custody for the assault conviction; collateral consequences insufficient. |
| Whether the Garlotte exception applies to concurrent sentences in Fernandez’s case. | Garlotte continuous custody due to concurrent sentences; invalidating assault could affect parole. | Garlotte not applicable to concurrent sentences; not in custody on assault conviction. | Garlotte not applicable; no continuous custody; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 690 (2010) (custody requirement and subject matter jurisdiction under §52-466)
- Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507 (2005) (custody requires current confinement; collateral consequences do not render in custody)
- Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488 (1989) (collateral consequences do not render in custody for habeas purposes)
- Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39 (1995) (consecutive sentences viewed as continuous custody; applicability limited in concurrent cases)
- Ford v. Commissioner of Correction, 59 Conn. App. 823 (2000) (concurrent sentences; Garlotte distinction in Connecticut context)
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (2006) (deportation collateral consequence; custody principles distinct from parole)
- Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563 (2005) (concurrent sentences begin to run from sentencing dates; custody analysis remains controlled by §52-466)
- Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1968) (continuous custody principle for consecutive sentences)