Little v. Commissioner of Correction
172 A.3d 325
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Jermaine Little pleaded guilty to kidnapping in the first degree under a state plea agreement and to felon-in-possession in federal court; sentences run concurrently with a narcotics sentence.
- State charged Little with kidnapping in the first degree, burglary, and robbery; plea limited to kidnapping and federal firearm charge.
- Our Supreme Court decision in Salamon (2008) redefined kidnapping elements, requiring intent to prevent liberation beyond what is necessary for another crime.
- Luurtsema II (2011) articulated retroactivity analysis; plurality favored retroactivity for Salamon in collateral attacks, with limits.
- Petitioner filed a first habeas petition (2006) and a second habeas petition (2013) alleging due process defects and actual innocence related to Salamon.
- Habeas court denied relief on the merits; petition for certification to appeal was denied and then pursued on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Salamon applies retroactively to collateral attacks in plea-only kidnapping cases | Little argues Salamon retroactively impacts his plea-based kidnapping conviction | State argues retroactivity should be limited given finality and plea-bargain reliance | Salamon applies retroactively to Little's plea-based case |
| Whether Little's guilty plea was constitutionally valid after Salamon | Record lacked awareness of Salamon's new element of intent | Plea was knowing and voluntary under prior law | Retroactivity of Salamon not applied; plea valid under this record |
| Whether Little is actually innocent and due process requires review | Petitioner asserts actual innocence due to Salamon interpretation | Not properly raised or reviewable on appeal | Claim not reviewable; not distinctly raised before habeas court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (redefined kidnapping with additional intent requirement; retroactivity debated)
- Luurtsema v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740 (Conn. 2011) (plurality held Salamon retroactive in habeas; governs retroactivity analysis in present case)
- State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608 (Conn. 2008) (Salamon-relief context; retroactivity considerations discussed)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standards for abuse of discretion in habeas certification after Lozada)
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1991) (standard for evaluating certification decisions in habeas corpus)