214 Conn.App. 358
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Petitioner Michael G. was convicted of first‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child and sentenced in 2006; direct appeal and subsequent habeas review were unsuccessful.
- First habeas petition (filed 2010, amended 2012) proceeded to trial and was denied; denial of certification to appeal followed. Second habeas petition filed Sept. 23, 2014, was withdrawn on Feb. 7, 2017, before its scheduled trial.
- Petitioner filed a third habeas petition on Dec. 1, 2017. The respondent requested an order to show cause under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑470 because the third petition was filed more than two years after the prior habeas judgment was final.
- Before the show‑cause hearing petitioner moved to disqualify Judge Newson (who had presided over the first habeas trial and had made strong credibility findings then); the motion was denied and the judge said he had no present recollection of the prior proceeding.
- At the show‑cause hearing petitioner (the sole witness) testified that second‑petition counsel advised him to withdraw and wait "at least sixty days" before refiling; the court found the third petition untimely by ~10 months and held the petitioner failed to show good cause for the delay, viewing the withdrawal as strategic delay.
- The habeas court dismissed the third petition, denied certification to appeal; this appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner showed good cause to overcome § 52‑470(d)'s presumption of unreasonable delay | Counsel’s incorrect advice caused the late filing; petitioner reasonably withdrew and relied on counsel to refile after ~60 days | No evidence of external forces; petitioner and counsel are responsible; petition was filed ~10 months late with no newly discovered evidence | Court: No abuse of discretion; advice of counsel doesn’t satisfy Kelsey’s requirement that delay be caused by something outside petitioner and habeas counsel; length and lack of explanation fatal |
| Whether Judge Newson should have been disqualified for appearance of bias based on prior credibility rulings | Prior statements that petitioner “lacked even the slightest semblance of credibility” create an appearance of partiality warranting recusal | Prior credibility comments were proper judicial findings in earlier case; judge had no recollection and comments weren’t extreme; denial appropriate | Court: No abuse of discretion; prior credibility opinions were within judicial role, not so extreme as to display inability to be fair; recusal not required |
| Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion | Certification should be granted because petitioner’s claims raise debatable issues about good cause and recusal | Claims are not debatable among jurists of reason; habeas court reasonably dismissed the petition and properly denied certification | Court: Denial of certification affirmed — petitioner failed Simms factors; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 424 (2022) (defines good‑cause inquiry for § 52‑470, lists relevant factors, and sets abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (certification to appeal standard adopted for habeas denials)
- State v. Rizzo, 303 Conn. 71 (2011) (prior judicial opinions from earlier proceedings seldom require recusal unless extreme)
- State v. Milner, 325 Conn. 1 (2017) (party urging disqualification bears burden; reasonableness objective standard applies)