216 Conn.App. 616
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Petitioner Marcus Hodge was convicted of manslaughter (2nd degree) and evading responsibility and sentenced in 2011; he challenged the retroactive application of 2013 amendments to the risk reduction earned credit (RREC) statutes.
- Hodge filed an amended habeas petition (Nov. 15, 2017) asserting, inter alia, that the Department of Correction improperly applied 2013 statutory changes retroactively (counts 2, 6, and 12).
- On March 19, 2018 the habeas court, sua sponte, dismissed the amended petition under Practice Book § 23-29 for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, without giving prior notice or an opportunity to respond.
- Hodge obtained certification to appeal; while the appeal was pending, the Connecticut Supreme Court decided Brown v. Commissioner of Correction and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, holding that courts must give prior notice and an opportunity to respond before dismissing a habeas petition sua sponte under § 23-29.
- Applying Brown and Boria, the Appellate Court reversed the dismissal and remanded, holding that if the habeas court again elects to dismiss under § 23-29 it must provide prior notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or written response; the court declined to order § 23-24 screening for the amended petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court could sua sponte dismiss the amended petition under Practice Book § 23-29 without prior notice and an opportunity to respond. | Hodge: dismissal without prior notice or chance to brief violated Brown/Boria and was improper. | Commissioner: court may dismiss on its own motion and Hodge can raise legal arguments on appeal; hearing not required. | Reversed: under Brown/Boria the court must give prior notice and an opportunity to submit a brief or written response before sua sponte dismissal under § 23-29 (hearing not mandatory). |
| Proper remedy and whether remand should direct § 23-24 screening (decline to issue writ). | Hodge: remand to habeas court for proceedings consistent with Brown/Boria. | Commissioner: this court could adjudicate the merits because claims are pure legal questions and Hodge has had appellate process. | Remand ordered to habeas court; court declined to require § 23-24 screening for the amended petition filed after the writ issued. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2022) (requires prior notice and opportunity to respond before sua sponte dismissal under Practice Book § 23-29; hearing optional).
- Boria v. Commissioner of Correction, 345 Conn. 39 (Conn. 2022) (companion decision reinforcing Brown’s notice-and-opportunity rule).
- Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction, 334 Conn. 548 (Conn. 2020) (distinguished § 23-24 screening as the proper mechanism to decline issuing the writ in some pre-writ contexts).
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (due process protection for reliance on governmental promises, cited by petitioner).
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 208 Conn. App. 204 (Conn. App. 2021) (context on RREC statutory scheme and related litigation).