157 Conn. App. 257
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Peter Saunders pleaded guilty in 2010 to second‑degree possession of child pornography and was sentenced under a plea agreement (ten years, execution suspended after four, probation, sex‑offender registration).
- Saunders filed a pro se habeas petition in 2012 and later obtained appointed habeas counsel, who filed an amended petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- A court‑entered scheduling order set the habeas trial for March 18, 2014 and warned that failure to comply could lead to sanctions including dismissal.
- Saunders missed a February 19, 2014 hearing on his motion to discharge his habeas attorney and also failed to appear for the March 18, 2014 trial date; counsel informed the court Saunders had called saying he was hospitalized but produced no documentation.
- The habeas court dismissed the petition under Practice Book § 23‑29(5) for failure to appear and prosecute; Saunders’ petition for certification to appeal was denied and he appealed.
- On appeal the Commissioner of Correction conceded that remand for consideration of a motion to open would be appropriate given Saunders’ attempted (but apparently unsuccessful) filing of a motion to open and the possibility Saunders was incapacitated at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saunders) | Defendant's Argument (Commissioner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habeas court abused discretion in denying certification to appeal | Denial was error because dismissal was improper and issues are debatable | Denial was proper given record; dismissal was within court’s discretion | Court: No abuse of discretion as to denial of certification based on record before it |
| Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion | Request timely communicated via counsel; absence was due to hospitalization; counsel acted in good faith | Saunders had history of unexplained absences and gave no proof of hospitalization; day‑of request was untimely | Court: Denial was not an abuse of discretion given history and lack of documentation |
| Whether dismissal under Practice Book § 23‑29(5) was improper or required an evidentiary hearing | Dismissal was wrongful; an evidentiary hearing should have been held to determine justification for absence | Dismissal was permissible as a sanction for failure to appear/prosecute; hearing not required under circumstances | Court: Dismissal was proper and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether remand for motion to open is warranted despite the above | Saunders attempted to file a motion to open but was prevented and may have been incapacitated; matter should be reopened | Commissioner agreed in interest of justice that remand for motion to open/resolution is appropriate | Court: Although original rulings stand, court exercised supervisory powers and remanded for consideration of a motion to open |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (standards for appellate review when habeas court denies certification to appeal)
- Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (Connecticut Supreme Court) (use of supervisory powers)
- Campbell v. Commissioner of Correction, 121 Conn. App. 576 (Connecticut Appellate Court) (remand appropriate where dismissal premised on incomplete information)
- Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 147 Conn. App. 748 (Connecticut Appellate Court) (review of dismissal under Practice Book § 23‑29(5) is for abuse of discretion)