204 Conn.App. 513
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Jerome Rice was convicted of murder and sentenced to 53 years; direct appeals concluded with certification denied on January 14, 2015.
- Rice filed multiple habeas petitions: first in 2007 (withdrawn 2010), second in 2010 (denied 2013; appellate review concluded January 14, 2015), and the present successive petition filed March 15, 2018.
- The respondent moved for dismissal under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470(d) as the successive petition was filed more than two years after the prior habeas judgment became final; the court issued an order to show cause under § 52-470(e).
- At an evidentiary hearing Rice testified he was unaware of the statutory filing deadlines, that prior counsel never informed him, and that he was preparing a federal habeas petition which delayed his state filing.
- The habeas court found no corroborating evidence, rejected Rice’s testimony as not credible, concluded he failed to show good cause to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay, dismissed the petition, and denied certification to appeal.
- On appeal Rice argued ignorance of the deadline and counsel’s failure to inform him established good cause; the Appellate Court declined to disturb the habeas court’s credibility findings and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Rice's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ignorance of § 52-470(d) filing deadlines (and counsel’s failure to inform) constitutes good cause to overcome the rebuttable presumption of unreasonable delay for a successive habeas petition | Rice: His testimony that he was unaware of deadlines and that prior counsel did not advise him shows good cause; he was pursuing federal relief which explains delay | Commissioner: No corroboration of Rice’s claims; habeas court found testimony not credible; mere assertion of ignorance is insufficient | The court held that even if ignorance could suffice, the habeas court found Rice’s testimony not credible; appellate court will not second-guess credibility findings, so dismissal and denial of certification stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 640 A.2d 601 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (two‑pronged test for appellate review after denial of certification to appeal in habeas cases)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 646 A.2d 126 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (adoption/clarification of certification test)
- Brenton v. Commissioner of Correction, 325 Conn. 640, 159 A.3d 1112 (Sup. Ct. 2017) (trial judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility)
- Felder v. Commissioner of Correction, 202 Conn. App. 503, 246 A.3d 63 (App. Ct. 2021) (held mere assertion of ignorance of § 52-470 deadlines, without more, insufficient to show good cause)
- Langston v. Commissioner of Correction, 185 Conn. App. 528, 197 A.3d 1034 (App. Ct. 2018) (insufficient evidence that prior counsel failed to apprise petitioner of time constraints)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556, 941 A.2d 248 (Sup. Ct. 2008) (legal conclusions reviewed plenarily; factual findings disturbed only if clearly erroneous)