Pereira v. Commissioner of Correction, 176 Conn. App. 762

Pereira was convicted in 2000 of murder and first‑degree kidnapping; sentences were consecutive for an effective 75 years. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Factual core: while parked, Pereira assaulted and strangled the victim inside a car; she broke free, ran from the car, and Pereira then drove into her, ran her over, dragged and kicked her, causing death.
After Salamon (reinterpreting kidnapping to exclude restraints incidental to another crime), Pereira sought collateral relief in a 2013 habeas petition arguing his kidnapping conviction violated due process under Salamon.
At the habeas trial the court denied relief, concluding Salamon applied retroactively but an instruction was not required because the in‑car restraint had independent criminal significance; any error was harmless. The court denied certification to appeal.
On appeal from denial of certification, Pereira raised (1) a Salamon claim tied to an uncharged in‑car assault and (2) a Salamon claim that the entire episode was one continuous crime; the appellate court declined to consider the first claim because it was not raised below and affirmed denial of certification as to the second claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Pereira)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Whether Salamon requires vacatur/instruction because in‑car restraint was incidental to an uncharged assault	The in‑car restraints were merely incidental to an uncharged assault; Salamon instruction was required	Claim was not preserved/raised in the habeas petition or petition for certification	Not considered on appeal (claim unraised below); appellate review denied
Whether Salamon requires vacatur/instruction because entire conduct was a single, continuous crime (murder)	The restraint was part of a continuous act culminating in murder, so restraint was incidental to the murder and Salamon applies	The in‑car restraint was completed before the murder and thus had independent criminal significance	Court held Salamon did not apply; restraint inside car was completed and independent, so no instruction required; denial of certification not an abuse
Whether Salamon applies retroactively in collateral proceedings	N/A (Pereira relied on retroactivity)	State conceded or court held Salamon is retroactive (per precedent)	Court agreed Salamon is retroactive but inapplicable on the facts here
Whether denial of Salamon instruction (if error) was harmless	N/A (argued)	Any instructional error would be harmless in context of overwhelming evidence	Habeas court found any error harmless; appellate court affirmed denial of certification

State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (reinterpreting kidnapping intent: kidnapping excludes restraints merely incidental to another crime)
Luurtsema v. Commissioner of Correction, 299 Conn. 740 (Conn. 2011) (Salamon is generally retroactive in collateral proceedings)
State v. Fields, 302 Conn. 236 (Conn. 2011) (Salamon instruction ordinarily required when kidnapping charged with another offense unless restraint has independent significance)
State v. Gomez, 225 Conn. 347 (Conn. 1993) (liberty is restored—and kidnapping ends—when victim is freed)
State v. Golder, 127 Conn. App. 181 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) (restraint has independent significance where completed before subsequent offense)
Eric M. v. Commissioner of Correction, 153 Conn. App. 837 (Conn. App. Ct. 2014) (Salamon analysis depends on particular facts and whether restraint exceeded what was necessary for the other crime)
State v. Pereira, 72 Conn. App. 545 (Conn. App. Ct. 2002) (direct appeal of Pereira’s convictions)