Oliphant v. Warden, State Prison, 53 Conn. Supp. 194

Petitioner Anthony Oliphant filed multiple habeas petitions beginning in 2007 challenging his larceny conviction and probation violation; the petitions were consolidated and litigated with counsel McKay and prior counsel Weber, with trial court proceedings including a self-representation by Oliphant and standby counsel Moscowitz.
Oliphant was convicted of larceny in the first degree by defrauding a public community after a jury trial, with direct appeal upholding the conviction.
A separate probation revocation occurred in 2007 after alleged assaults; Oliphant was sentenced to 6.5 years of incarceration, with appellate affirmation.
Oliphant had prior federal habeas petitions dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and multiple state petitions with varying outcomes; prior habeas and appellate matters involved various counsel and claims.
Attorney Weber withdrew; Robert McKay was appointed as substitute counsel and concluded there were no nonfrivolous issues for trial; the court granted the withdrawal and allowed Oliphant to proceed pro se if desired.
The court applied Anders v. California and related Practice Book provisions to determine whether the case was wholly frivolous and granted the withdrawal if no nonfrivolous issues existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether any nonfrivolous issues exist for trial on the petition.	Oliphant contends there are nonfrivolous claims from prior proceedings.	McKay found no nonfrivolous issues after thorough review.	No nonfrivolous issues; withdrawal granted.
Whether claims about the larceny conviction are barred by res judicata.	Claims were previously litigated or could have been raised previously.	Appellate and prior habeas adjudications foreclose relitigation.	Frivolous due to res judicata and prior adjudications.
Whether issues related to access to courts, shackling, and competency have merit.	Claims about shackling, competency, and access are nonfrivolous.	Record supports no constitutional violation; standby counsel sufficed.	Frivolous; no nonfrivolous issues on these points.
Whether the probation-violation claims (withdrawal of counsel, continuances, speediness, etc.) have merit.	Cited numerous violations of rights during probation proceedings.	Court acted within its discretion; no reversible error.	Frivolous; no nonfrivolous issues for trial.
Whether double jeopardy claims regarding probation are viable.	Charges and probation proceedings implying double punishment.	Double jeopardy not applicable to probation revocation.	Frivolous; no nonfrivolous issues for trial.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (when case is wholly frivolous, withdrawal permitted with brief for record)
State v. Pascucci, 161 Conn. 382 (1971) (requires brief and notice before withdrawal; frivolous inquiry limits)
State v. Oliphant, 47 Conn. App. 271 (1997) (direct appeal; standby counsel not guaranteed ineffective assistance)
Kearney v. Commissioner of Correction, 113 Conn. App. 223 (2009) (res judicata applies to habeas petitions; new facts required)
State v. Jay, 124 Conn. App. 294 (2010) (double jeopardy considerations; standard of review)
State v. Gauthier, 73 Conn. App. 781 (2002) (probation revocation not a criminal punishment for double jeopardy purposes)
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (right to access to courts; not violated when standby counsel is provided)
Spates v. Manson, 644 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1981) (limits on pro se access; adequacy of legal resources)
Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, 39 Conn. App. 674 (1995) ( Bounds applicability in Connecticut context)
State v. Fernandez, 254 Conn. 637 (2000) (inmate access to law library when standby counsel exists)
State v. Lopez, 280 Conn. 779 (2007) (continuance and defense self-representation considerations)
State v. Vilchel, 112 Conn. App. 411 (2009) (police jurisdiction and arrest considerations)