Foote v. Commissioner of Correction
155 A.3d 823
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Foote was serving an eight-year sentence with special parole on an earlier Ansonia conviction; special parole was later reduced to 3.5 years.
- While on parole he pled guilty (Alford) to a 2-year Waterbury conviction to run concurrently with the Ansonia term; DOC delayed the unexpired special parole on the Ansonia conviction until after the Waterbury incarceration ended.
- Foote completed the Waterbury sentence between July and September 2012; on January 3, 2013 he filed a habeas petition challenging the Waterbury conviction.
- The Commissioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing Foote was not in custody on the Waterbury conviction when he filed.
- The habeas court granted dismissal, finding the custody requirement of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-466 was not met and the Garlotte exception for consecutive sentences did not apply; the court certified the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Foote's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court had jurisdiction because Foote was in custody on the challenged Waterbury conviction when he filed | Foote: Although Waterbury sentence was concurrent, DOC’s delay of special parole made the sentences effectively continuous; Garlotte exception applies | Commissioner: Waterbury sentence had expired when petition filed; concurrent sentences do not create continuous custody; no jurisdiction under §52-466 | Held: No jurisdiction — Waterbury sentence was complete and collateral consequences (delayed parole) do not make petitioner "in custody" on the expired conviction |
| Whether the Garlotte exception applies to convert concurrent sentences into a continuous stream of custody | Foote: Delay in special parole functionally made sentences consecutive so Garlotte should apply | Commissioner: Garlotte applies only to consecutive sentences; parole delay is a collateral consequence, not a conversion to consecutive service | Held: Garlotte did not apply because sentences remained concurrent; collateral consequences do not convert them into consecutive sentences |
| Whether the habeas court should have allowed or sua sponte amended the petition to challenge the Ansonia conviction instead | Foote: Court should have taken precautions or allowed amendment to challenge the Ansonia sentence (on which he was in custody) | Commissioner: No obligation to amend pleadings sua sponte; petitioner did not request amendment | Held: Court was not required to amend pleadings sua sponte; dismissal was proper without sua sponte amendment |
| Whether collateral consequences (delayed parole) suffice to meet §52-466 custody requirement | Foote: Delay in parole produced present confinement-related consequences tied to Waterbury conviction | Commissioner: Collateral consequences from an expired conviction are insufficient to establish custody for habeas jurisdiction | Held: Collateral consequences do not establish custody; petitioner was in custody only on the Ansonia conviction when petition filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1995) (expired consecutive sentence may be challenged if success would advance release date)
- Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1968) (habeas challenge to future consecutive sentence permissible)
- Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563 (Conn. 2005) (explaining Garlotte exception and continuous stream concept)
- Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 690 (Conn. 2010) (collateral consequences from an expired conviction do not create custody under §52-466)
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of Corrections, 280 Conn. 514 (Conn. 2006) (expired sentence’s collateral consequences insufficient for custody)
- Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507 (Conn. 2005) (same principle regarding collateral consequences and custody)
- Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 139 Conn. App. 173 (Conn. App. 2012) (concurrent sentences do not create continuous custody for habeas jurisdiction)