Logan v. Commissioner of Correction
125 Conn. App. 744
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Logan was convicted by Alford plea to murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and violation of probation, and sentenced to 31 years; no direct appeal filed.
- Logan filed an amended habeas petition in 2000 alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary.
- Habeas court denied the petition; this court affirmed in Logan v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn.App. 373 (2002).
- In 2006 Logan, proceeding pro se, filed a new habeas petition asserting various asserted defects including the plea and sentence issues; a special public defender was appointed.
- In 2007, counsel D’Amato moved to withdraw; Logan objected; the court granted withdrawal and allowed Logan to proceed pro se; later denial of reappointment of counsel in 2008.
- In 2008 the respondent moved for summary judgment on counts 1–5 and to dismiss count 6; the court granted the motions; in 2009 Logan sought certification to appeal which was denied; Logan appealed but the issues were not properly preserved for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal | Logan contends denial abused discretion by not addressing his core issues. | Respondent argues the issue was not properly presented and falls outside-review under Mitchell/Mitchell-line precedent. | No abuse of discretion; denial upheld. |
| Whether the withdrawal of counsel was properly handled and reviewable | Logan asserts error in allowing D'Amato to withdraw and seeks review of that ruling. | It was not raised in the petition or certification to appeal and thus not reviewable here. | The withdrawal issue not presented; not reviewed on appeal. |
| Whether the grant of summary judgment on Counts 1–5 (and dismissal of Count 6) was proper | Logan implies error in summary judgment decisions related to his habeas petition. | Issue not reviewable given absence of certification abuse; merits not reached. | Merits not reviewed due to lack of abuse of discretion in certification denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 689 (1997) (Supreme Court discussion of § 52-470(b) limits on review and purpose of certification)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (two-pronged test for abuse of discretion in certification decisions)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (two-pronged test for merit review after abuse finding)
- Mitchell v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn.App. 1 (2002) (dismissal of issues not raised to habeas court not abuse of discretion review)
- James L. v. Commissioner of Correction, 245 Conn. 132 (1998) (recognizes that certification denial limits appellate review scope)
- Lewis v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn.App. 693 (2010) (review scope after certification denial)
- McClean v. Commissioner of Correction, 103 Conn.App. 254 (2007) (precludes reviewing issues not presented to court)
- Iovieno v. Commissioner of Correction, 242 Conn. 689 (1997) (limitation on appellate review via § 52-470(b))