166 Conn. App. 22
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Lewis was sentenced in 1989 to 10 years (execution suspended after 3 years) with probation; he was transferred to a supervised home release program and signed conditions. He absconded in October 1989 and remained at large until extradited back to Connecticut in December 2013.
- During the 24 years at large Lewis used aliases, multiple birthdates/SSNs, was arrested/convicted in other states, and was not in DOC physical custody between 1989 and 2013.
- Lewis filed a habeas petition (2014) with two counts: (1) his sentence continued to run and was completed because DOC did not issue a remand until 2013; (2) his due process rights were violated by the extraordinary delay in reincarceration and alleged failure of DOC to diligently pursue his return.
- At trial Lewis argued broadly that it was "fundamentally unfair" to remand him after ~25 years; DOC argued the claim was essentially laches and that time does not run against the state in these circumstances. The habeas court found Lewis was not on parole, rejected the fairness/laches argument, and denied relief.
- Lewis later raised, for the first time in a postjudgment motion to reargue, a new theory that DOC’s delay amounted to "waiver of jurisdiction" and permanently deprived Connecticut of authority to reinstate him; the habeas court denied reargument. Lewis appealed the denial of certification to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC waived jurisdiction such that Connecticut lost authority to reincarcerate Lewis | Lewis: DOC’s long failure to seek his return (decades) waived jurisdiction and violated due process so he cannot be compelled to complete sentence | DOC: Waiver theory not timely raised; no authority that time runs against the state; claim is essentially laches and not applicable | Court: Waiver-of-jurisdiction claim was not raised in pleadings or at trial; raising it only in motion to reargue was untimely—issue barred on appeal |
| Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion | Lewis: certification denial was improper because his due process/waiver claim merits review | DOC: denial was proper because the new waiver theory was not preserved and underlying claims were not debatable among jurists | Court: No abuse of discretion; underlying arguments were not properly presented and were not debatable; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Asherman v. Meachum, 213 Conn. 38 (1989) (distinguishes supervised home release from parole; home releasees remain in DOC custody)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (standard for obtaining appellate review after denial of certification)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (adopts two‑pronged test for reviewability after denial of certification)
- Moye v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 779 (2015) (party generally may not raise new claims on appeal not presented at trial)
- Zollo v. Commissioner of Correction, 133 Conn.App. 266 (2012) (pleading limits habeas relief to asserted allegations)
- Hankerson v. Commissioner of Correction, 150 Conn.App. 362 (2014) (court must consider merits to determine whether denial of certification was an abuse of discretion)
- Opoku v. Grant, 63 Conn.App. 686 (2001) (limits on use of motion to reargue; not a chance to present new claims)
- State v. Ovechka, 292 Conn. 533 (2009) (release does not necessarily render criminal appeal moot because of collateral consequences and remaining probation)