Fine v. Commissioner of Correction
147 Conn. App. 136
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2013Background
- Paul Fine filed an amended habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his guilty pleas were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary.
- Respondent argued that Fine previously withdrew a 1997 habeas petition with prejudice, thus waiving the current claim.
- A 1998 withdrawal with prejudice occurred in the prior petition; the withdrawal form did not indicate it was with prejudice, and there was conflicting testimony about advisement and understanding.
- The habeas court dismissed the current petition, deeming the withdrawal a deliberate bypass and a waiver of the present claim.
- The court relied on credibility findings that Fine knowingly withdrew with prejudice and that the waiver barred consideration of the current petition.
- The appellate court reversed, concluding the record did not establish a valid, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of the right to petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior withdrawal constituted a valid waiver of the current habeas claim | Fine did not knowingly waive his rights. | Respondent argued a valid waiver occurred by withdrawal with prejudice. | Waiver not proven; reversal warranted. |
| Whether the deliberate bypass doctrine applies to this procedural default | Deliberate bypass not applicable to this case. | Withdrawal with prejudice represented deliberate bypass of the merits. | Deliberate bypass does not control here; not established. |
| Whether the record affirmatively shows the petitioner was apprised of and understood the waiver | Record insufficient to show understanding of the waiver. | Evidence supported that petitioner understood consequences. | No affirmative showing of knowing, voluntary waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molinas v. Commissioner of Correction, 231 Conn. 514 (Ct. 1994) (waiver must be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- Tyson v. Warden, 24 Conn. App. 729 (Ct. App. 1991) (record must disclose knowing, voluntary waiver of rights)
- Smith v. Robinson, 8 Conn. App. 459 (Ct. App. 1986) (waiver of appeal requires knowing and voluntary action)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 (Ct. 2009) (deliberate bypass framework and defaults in habeas)
- State v. Crawley, 138 Conn. App. 124 (Ct. App. 2012) (waiver standards and knowing conduct in appeals)
- State v. Patterson, 230 Conn. 385 (Ct. 1994) (waivers may be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
- Summerville v. Warden, 229 Conn. 397 (Ct. 1994) (habeas pleading and rights protection framing)
- Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19 (U.S. 1939) (habeas corpus protections and liberty interests)