159 Conn.App. 854
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Michael Ouellette was convicted by a three-judge bench of murder and sentenced to 60 years; the conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- Ouellette, a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, was found at the crime scene with the victim’s belongings and advanced defenses of mental disease/defect and extreme emotional disturbance at trial.
- In a 2012 amended habeas petition Ouellette alleged, among other things, that Judge Wollenberg had discussed the case off the record before the bench’s decision, creating judicial bias and violating due process.
- The Commissioner raised procedural default as an affirmative defense; the habeas court held an evidentiary hearing, heard three witnesses, rejected procedural default, but found the bias claim speculative and unproven.
- The habeas court denied certification to appeal; Ouellette appealed that denial to the Appellate Court, arguing abuse of discretion and due process violation from judicial bias; he also asserted an evidentiary error about excluded testimony.
- The Appellate Court concluded Ouellette failed to present a factual basis for bias, could not show the habeas court’s denial of certification was an abuse of discretion, and declined to review the unpreserved evidentiary claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias violated due process | Judge Wollenberg made off‑the‑record comments to a marshal indicating predisposition to find Ouellette guilty, depriving him of an impartial tribunal | Respondent argued claim was procedurally defaulted and, on merits, evidence was speculative and insufficient to show bias | Court held petitioner failed to prove factual basis for bias; claim speculative; no due process violation shown |
| Habeas court abused discretion in denying certification to appeal | Denial was abuse because underlying due process issue is debatable and merits review | Habeas court reasonably concluded issues were not debatable among jurists of reason | Denial of certification was not an abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed |
| Evidentiary ruling excluding comparison testimony of investigator (Senick) | Exclusion prevented showing inconsistency between marshal’s hearing testimony and earlier statements to investigator | Respondent: claim not raised in petition for certification, thus unpreserved | Appellate Court refused to review the evidentiary claim as it was not raised in the certification petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (establishes two‑part test for appellate review when habeas certification denied)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (adopts and clarifies standards for habeas certification review)
- State v. Ouellette, 271 Conn. 740 (2004) (direct appeal affirming petitioner’s conviction; factual summary of underlying crime)
- McGee v. Commissioner of Correction, 157 Conn. App. 863 (2015) (discusses standard for habeas certification denial review)
- State v. Eric M., 79 Conn. App. 91 (2003) (standard for determining whether reasonable person would question judge’s impartiality)
- McKenna v. Delente, 123 Conn. App. 137 (2010) (speculation insufficient to show appearance of impropriety)
- Stenner v. Commissioner of Correction, 144 Conn. App. 371 (2013) (claims not raised in certification petition are not preserved for appellate review)