Riddick v. Commissioner of Correction, 19 A.3d 174

Riddick was convicted in 1998 of murder and risk of injury to a child, receiving a total sentence of 63 years.
His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal by the Connecticut Appellate Court.
In 2001, he filed a self-represented petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Special public defender Levy was appointed in 2003 to amend the petition and assess claims.
Levy sought leave to withdraw under Anders v. California, arguing the petition was wholly frivolous and the court must conduct a full record review.
The habeas court granted Levy’s withdrawal motion in 2004 and dismissed the petition; the decision was reviewed through the Appellate Court and this Court, which ultimately narrowed the issue on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the habeas court properly granted withdrawal under Anders.	Riddick argues the court failed to conduct proper review of the transcript and proceedings.	Commissioner contends the court complied with Anders and related practice rules.	Yes; the court properly followed Anders procedures and did not abuse discretion.
Whether the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal.	Riddick contends the court mishandled issues that were not frivolous.	Commissioner maintains the denial was proper given the record.	Yes; certification denial was proper.
Whether Riddick raised nonfrivolous issues warranting appellate review.	Riddick asserts nonfrivolous claims exist that merit review.	Levy’s Anders submission and the record show the issues were frivolous.	Yes; the issues were frivolous and dismissal was appropriate.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (establishes procedure for withdrawing when case is wholly frivolous after full record review)
Pascucci v. State, 161 Conn. 382 (Conn. 1971) (connects Anders procedure to state practice)