176 Conn. App. 779
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Petitioner Robert V. Pentland III filed a pro se habeas petition (May 22, 2015) challenging his 2011 convictions for two counts of witness tampering, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel among other claims.
- The habeas court sua sponte dismissed the petition under Practice Book § 23-29(1), concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because petitioner was not "in custody" on the witness tampering conviction when he filed the petition; no hearing was held and the court gave no factual findings.
- Petitioner filed for certification to appeal; the denial was later reopened and certification granted after appellate counsel intervened.
- On appeal petitioner argued he remained in continuous custody because he served the witness tampering sentence (Dec. 20, 2010–Dec. 19, 2011) while also detained on separate sexual-assault charges, and later received pretrial credit on the sexual-assault sentence that did not include the time spent serving the witness tampering sentence—so the sentences should be treated as an aggregate (consecutive) term for jurisdictional purposes.
- The habeas court and this appellate panel limited review to the facts pleaded in the habeas petition; petitioner had not pleaded detailed sentencing/confined-date facts or attached other court records, and the appellate court declined judicial notice of those outside records.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding petitioner failed to allege sufficient facts to establish the court's subject matter jurisdiction (custody) and thus dismissal without a hearing was proper under Practice Book § 23-29.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pentland) | Defendant's Argument (Comm'r of Correction) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court had subject-matter jurisdiction because petitioner was "in custody" on the challenged witness tampering conviction when he filed the petition | The witness tampering sentence and later sexual-assault sentence form a continuous/aggregate (consecutive) stream of custody so that petitioner was effectively still in custody on the tampering conviction when he filed | Court lacked jurisdiction because petitioner was not in custody on the witness tampering conviction at filing; petitioner failed to plead facts establishing continuous/consecutive custody | Affirmed: petitioner failed to allege sufficient facts to show custody; dismissal was proper |
| Whether dismissal without a hearing was improper where jurisdiction was contested and factual development might show continuous custody | Requested de facto hearing/consideration of outside records or judicial notice to establish custody facts | Court may dismiss sua sponte under Practice Book § 23-29 when pleadings show lack of jurisdiction; petitioner did not request a hearing or plead necessary facts | Affirmed: no obligation to hold hearing where petition’s pleadings failed to allege jurisdictional facts and petitioner did not move for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507 (Conn. 2005) (pleadings control motion-to-dismiss jurisdictional review; habeas custody requirement discussed)
- Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563 (Conn. 2005) (prior and future consecutive sentences treated as continuous custody for jurisdiction)
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (Conn. 2006) (subject-matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time; plenary review)
- Young v. Commissioner of Correction, 104 Conn. App. 188 (Conn. App. Ct. 2007) (habeas court has jurisdiction only if petitioner is in custody when petition filed)
- Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (U.S. 1968) (habeas petitioner serving consecutive sentences may challenge a future sentence)
- Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39 (U.S. 1995) (consecutive sentences may be viewed as continuous custody where success would advance release)
- O'Connor v. Larocque, 302 Conn. 562 (Conn. 2011) (judicial notice of prior cases is limited and must be carefully construed)