223 Conn.App. 562
Conn. App. Ct.2024Background
- The petitioner, Rodney S. Hankerson, was convicted of felony murder and robbery and received a 60-year sentence.
- Hankerson filed multiple habeas petitions; his third, filed in 2017, was at issue for being outside the two-year statutory limit for successive filings under Connecticut law.
- His second habeas petition was withdrawn in 2016, and he claimed his counsel failed to advise him about the strict filing deadline, contributing to the late third filing.
- The habeas court held an evidentiary hearing but concluded Hankerson had not demonstrated good cause for the delay and dismissed the petition as untimely.
- On appeal, the Supreme Court issued Rose v. Commissioner of Correction during briefing, clarifying standards for what constitutes "good cause" for late filings in habeas proceedings.
- The appellate court reversed the dismissal, remanding for a new good cause hearing under the correct legal standard per Rose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to advise about habeas deadlines can be "good cause" for late filing | Hankerson argued his counsel’s failure to advise him about filing deadlines was ineffective assistance and constituted good cause | Commissioner argued, relying on Kelsey, that errors by counsel are not external factors and cannot be good cause | The court held that ineffective assistance can be an external, objective factor constituting good cause (per Rose); remand for new determination under correct standard |
| Application of the Kelsey factors about "external" versus "internal" cause for delay | Hankerson argued the nature of the ineffective advice made the cause "external" to him | Commissioner argued it was an "internal" issue not excusable under the statute | Court clarified Rose supersedes Kelsey on this point: such ineffective assistance is treated as "external" |
| Whether court must automatically find good cause where counsel fails to advise on deadlines | Hankerson contended such failure necessarily establishes good cause | Commissioner contended it should never establish good cause | Court held it's a factual, discretionary determination requiring evaluation of all circumstances; not automatic |
| Should prior erroneous standard used by habeas court result in new hearing | Remand necessary given new law from Rose | Commissioner conceded not clear how habeas court would rule under new law | Court reversed and remanded for hearing under correct standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 424 (Conn. 2022) (addressed what factors can constitute good cause for late habeas filings; clarified as partially incorrect by Rose)
- Rose v. Commissioner of Correction, 348 Conn. 333 (Conn. 2023) (held ineffective assistance of counsel can be external, objective factor for good cause in untimely habeas petitions)
- Hankerson v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn. App. 362 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014) (related earlier appeal by the same petitioner concerning habeas review)