Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction
2013 WL 5716167
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Anthony W. Oliphant was convicted in 1996 of welfare fraud (larceny) and received a sentence with a suspended portion and probation; he later had probation revoked after new offenses.
- Oliphant has pursued extensive postconviction litigation: numerous state habeas petitions (consolidated here) and multiple federal petitions; appointed counsel Weber and McKay represented him at different stages.
- McKay filed a sealed Anders-style motion to withdraw under Practice Book § 23-41, asserting the habeas claims were wholly frivolous; Judge Sferrazza granted withdrawal and declined to appoint substitute counsel.
- Judge T. Santos later dismissed the consolidated second amended habeas petition after a show-cause hearing, concluding the claims were frivolous or barred; she denied certification to appeal.
- Oliphant appealed the denial of certification, arguing (1) McKay’s Anders withdrawal was improper (failure to provide transcripts/exhibits and failure to investigate competency), (2) denial of counsel and law-library access violated his rights, and (3) triable issues existed as to actual innocence (new evidence), loss of good-time credit, and denial of the presumption of innocence.
- The appellate court found the record inadequate on some claim elements, reviewed the Anders withdrawal de novo, rejected the access-to-courts and competency arguments, held several claims were res judicata or meritless, deemed the good-time claim moot, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Oliphant’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether McKay properly moved to withdraw under Anders/Pascucci | McKay failed to provide exhibits/transcripts and did not investigate incompetence outside the record | Record shows Anders procedures followed; appellant bears burden to provide adequate record | Record inadequate on factual showing of missing materials; on merits court reviewed and held Anders withdrawal proper — no nonfrivolous issues |
| Whether counsel should have been appointed after Anders withdrawal / denial of access to law library | Denial of substitute counsel and law-library access violated right of access to courts; need help to pursue habeas claims | No constitutional right to counsel in habeas; statutory appointment limited to nonfrivolous claims; petitioner had extensive prior representation and filings | No entitlement to appointed counsel once court finds claims wholly frivolous; no denial of access shown given procedural history |
| Whether newly discovered evidence (Dixon’s hospital records) and actual innocence create triable issue on probation revocation | Hospital photos undermine Dixon’s testimony and negate violation of probation | Probation revocation was based on multiple findings (assaults and other offenses); records would not negate findings | Claim fails — newly produced material does not establish actual innocence of probation violation; underlying factual findings stand |
| Whether shackling/prison garb deprived Oliphant of presumption of innocence at trial | Shackling and prison garb prejudiced jury; deprived fair-trial presumption | Prior appeals/habeas already litigated shackling; prison garb claim not raised in habeas pleadings | Shackling claim precluded by res judicata; prison-garb claim not pleaded — court properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when appointed counsel seeks withdrawal as frivolous)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Conn. 1994) (standards for appellate review when certification to appeal from habeas denial is refused)
- State v. Pascucci, 161 Conn. 382 (Conn. 1971) (state guidance on Anders-style withdrawals)
- State v. Oliphant, 47 Conn. App. 271 (Conn. App. 1997) (direct appeal resolving waiver of counsel, standby counsel and sufficiency issues)
- Wright v. Commissioner of Correction, 143 Conn. App. 274 (Conn. App. 2013) (standard for reviewing denial of certification to appeal from habeas)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (U.S. 1977) (prisoners’ constitutional right of access to courts requires law libraries or legal assistance)