Rose v. Commissioner of Correction
304 A.3d 431
| Conn. | 2023Background
- Steven W. Rose was convicted of felony murder and timely filed a habeas petition in 2012, shortly after his conviction became final.
- Dissatisfied with his assigned habeas counsel (Wallace), Rose withdrew his timely 2012 petition on the advice of counsel, who did not advise him of the statutory refiling deadline under § 52-470.
- The habeas court dismissed the 2012 petition without prejudice, and Rose later filed a new habeas petition in February 2018, over five years after final judgment and beyond the statutory deadline.
- The Commissioner of Correction moved to dismiss the 2018 petition as untimely; at a hearing, both Rose and Wallace testified that Rose was never informed of the need to refile by a specific date.
- The habeas court found that Wallace had instructed Rose to "refile now," dismissed the petition as untimely, and the Appellate Court affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the untimely habeas filing was excused by good cause under § 52-470 | Rose: Counsel's failure to inform him of the deadline and ineffective assistance amount to good cause | Commissioner: Ignorance of the deadline—whether by counsel or petitioner—is not good cause under the statute | Court found habeas court's factual finding was clearly erroneous; reversed and remanded for a proper good cause determination |
| Whether ineffective assistance of habeas counsel is an external, objective factor excusing untimely filing | Rose: Ineffective assistance cannot be attributed to him, qualifies as an external factor | Commissioner: Only truly external factors (not attorney's performance) excuse lateness, not ignorance/errors by counsel | Court holds that ineffective assistance of counsel is an external, objective factor that may constitute good cause |
| Whether the habeas court's finding that Rose was advised to "refile now" was supported by the record | Rose: No evidence he was advised to refile with urgency; testimony showed otherwise | Commissioner: Wallace's statements and transcript indicated Rose was directed to act promptly | Court holds the finding was clearly erroneous—evidence did not show Rose was instructed to refile immediately |
| Procedural handling: Should the case be remanded for factual findings on ineffective assistance | Rose: Remand needed for further factual development | Commissioner: No remand needed; facts insufficient for good cause as a matter of law | Court remands for new hearing and findings on performance of prior habeas counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 424 (Conn. 2022) (establishes the good cause framework for untimely habeas petitions and balancing factors)
- Saunders v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2022) (ineffective assistance of counsel is an external, objective factor for cause analysis)
- State v. Rose, 132 Conn. App. 563 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011) (background of petitioner's criminal conviction)
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 (Conn. 2008) (ineffective assistance is a legitimate ground for cause)
- Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 (Conn. 2001) (attorney error short of ineffective assistance does not excuse procedural default)