Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction
147 Conn. App. 748
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2014Background
- Troy Mozell was convicted in 1991 of narcotics possession with intent to sell and conspiracy; convictions affirmed on direct appeal (evidence included a .38 handgun found at a co-defendant’s residence).
- Mozell filed multiple habeas petitions; the opinion concerns his third habeas action filed in 2009, in which he alleged ineffective assistance at several stages (trial counsel, direct appellate counsel, first habeas counsel, and second habeas counsel).
- On the day the third habeas trial was to begin, the court granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss counts 1–3 as successive or previously litigated, leaving only count 4 (ineffective assistance by prior habeas counsel).
- Mozell orally asked to amend to add trial-evidence/due-process claims; the court denied the day-of-trial amendment request for lack of good cause under Practice Book § 23-32.
- Mozell then told the court he wished to withdraw the remaining (fourth) count; the court canvassed him, explained potential consequences, and accepted the withdrawal but added the phrase “with prejudice.” The habeas court denied certification to appeal; Mozell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the habeas court abused discretion by denying Mozell's oral motion to amend the petition on day of trial | Mozell argued he should be allowed to amend to add due-process claims about admission of the gun and gang evidence | Respondent argued the return had been filed and Mozell failed to show good cause for a last-minute amendment | Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion; amendment properly denied as untimely and previously addressed on direct appeal |
| Whether the court’s acceptance of Mozell’s withdrawal "with prejudice" is ripe for review | Mozell argued any preclusive effect is speculative and not yet justiciable | Respondent argued any alleged prejudice is hypothetical until a future refiling is blocked | Ripeness: claim is ripe — withdrawal with prejudice produced a final adjudication and is reviewable |
| Whether courts may accept a withdrawal "with prejudice" and whether doing so here violated Mozell’s rights | Mozell contended withdrawal with prejudice is improper, nullifies voluntariness, and requires a §23-29 dismissal process/hearing | Respondent relied on court discretion and facts (witnesses/subpoenas/evidence/costs; prior petitions) to justify adding prejudice when accepting withdrawal | Court held withdrawal with prejudice is recognized in Connecticut, may be imposed where justified, and was knowing, voluntary, and within discretion; Mozell cannot prevail on merits |
| Whether the habeas court abused discretion in denying certification to appeal | Mozell argued issues are debatable among jurists (thus certification should be granted) | Respondent argued issues were not debatable/frivolous or premature | Court concluded denial of certification was an abuse of discretion only regarding the withdrawal-with-prejudice claim (debatable), but Mozell still loses on the merits of that claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standard: habeas appeal merits review requires showing denial of certification was an abuse of discretion)
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1991) (factors for evaluating counsel-related certification issues cited by Connecticut courts)
- Castonguay v. Commissioner of Correction, 300 Conn. 649 (Conn. 2011) (clarifies Simms standard and requires consideration of merits when reviewing certification denial)
- State v. Mozell, 36 Conn. App. 672 (Conn. App. 1995) (direct appeal addressing admission of gun and harmless error analysis)
- Pierce v. Commissioner of Correction, 100 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2007) (amendment of habeas pleadings denied when return filed and motion untimely)
- Fine v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 136 (Conn. App. 2013) (discusses canvass requirements and procedures for withdrawal with prejudice in habeas proceedings)
- Negron v. Warden, 180 Conn. 153 (Conn. 1980) (habeas corpus governed by equitable principles; courts may deny relief based on petitioner’s conduct)