Kaddah v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 129

Kaddah was convicted in 1996 of murder, attempted murder, and unlawful restraint, receiving a 75-year term.
Direct appeal was upheld by the Connecticut Supreme Court in 1999 (State v. Kaddah, 250 Conn. 563, 736 A.2d 902).
First state habeas petition (2001) claimed ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel; adjudicated against him, no cert. to appeal granted in 2004.
The petitioner withdrew his Appellate Court appeal before argument in 2004 (withdrawn appeal).
A federal habeas petition in 2008 was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies because the appeal had been withdrawn.
The present state habeas petition (2008) sought reinstatement of the withdrawn appeal so he could exhaust state remedies and pursue federal review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the petition successive under 23-29(3)?	Kaddah argues the petition seeks a different remedy.	State contends petition is successive as it repeats grounds from the first petition.	Petition dismissed as successive.
May 23-29 permit summary dismissal without notice?	Kaddah contends due process requires notice and hearing before dismissal.	State maintains § 23-29 permits summary dismissal when grounds exist.	Court did not need to reach notice issue; alternative ground suffices to affirm dismissal.
Can reinstatement of a withdrawn appeal be granted without alleging constitutional impairment of the right to appeal?	Kaddah seeks reinstatement; alleges ineffective assistance in prior proceedings as basis.	Reinstatement requires constitutional impairment of the right to appeal, which is not alleged for the withdrawn appeal.	No reinstatement without alleging constitutional impairment of the right to appeal.
Did the petition state a valid claim for habeas relief to reinstate the withdrawn appeal?	Petition's grounds support reinstatement to exhaust state remedies.	Allegations do not connect to the withdrawn appeal or constitutional impairment.	Petition failed to state a valid claim for reinstatement.

Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (abuse of discretion standards for certification to appeal)
Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (standard for determining abuse of discretion in habeas petitions)
James L. v. Commissioner of Correction, 245 Conn. 132 (1998) (constitutional impairment required for reinstatement of appeal)
Gaines v. Manson, 194 Conn. 510 (1984) (unconstitutional impairment can empower relief short of release)
Fredericks v. Reincke, 152 Conn. 501 (1965) (late appeal based on impairment of right to appeal)
State v. Phidd, 42 Conn. App. 17 (1996) (habeas court authority to reinstate when appropriate)
Galland v. Bronson, 16 Conn. App. 54 (1988) (Appellate review of habeas petition to reinstate appeal)
Brown v. Commissioner of Correction, 157 Conn. 398 (1969) (habeas court authority to consider late appeal under impairment theory)
Macri v. Hayes, 189 Conn. 566 (1983) (habeas petition must state specific grounds)
Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507 (2005) (pleading standard in habeas petitions)
Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563 (2005) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings, but must plead valid claims)