203 Conn.App. 289
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- Timothy Solek was convicted in 1999 of murder and second‑degree sexual assault and received a 55‑year sentence; his direct and first habeas appeals were unsuccessful.
- Solek filed a second pro se habeas petition on June 21, 2018 alleging new ineffective‑assistance‑of‑trial‑counsel claims.
- The Commissioner moved for an order to show cause under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑470 because the petition was filed after October 1, 2014, triggering a rebuttable presumption of unwarranted delay.
- At the show‑cause hearing Solek (then with counsel) testified he delayed because of allegedly incorrect advice from prior habeas counsel, severe mental‑health problems, and newly discovered evidence of a plea offer to his codefendant; the trial court limited evidence and sustained relevancy objections as to plea‑offer testimony.
- The habeas court found Solek failed to demonstrate good cause to rebut the statutory presumption, dismissed the petition, and denied certification to appeal; Solek appealed.
- The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as unreviewable or unpreserved: Solek raised the certification‑abuse threshold only in his reply brief and failed to press or preserve several evidentiary and investigatory claims below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Solek established good cause to rebut § 52‑470 presumption of unwarranted delay | Solek argued counsel misadvice and severe mental‑health issues prevented timely filing | DOC argued statutory presumption applied and Solek failed to show cause; court credibility findings supported dismissal | Not reviewed on merits: Solek failed to brief abuse‑of‑discretion threshold in main brief; even if considered, habeas court’s credibility and good‑cause determination was not shown to be an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the habeas court denied a meaningful opportunity to present evidence of a plea offer at the show‑cause hearing | Solek argued the court improperly excluded testimony and e‑mail evidence about a plea offer relevant to good cause | DOC argued the hearing was limited to the statutory good‑cause inquiry and excluded collateral claim evidence; and Solek failed to preserve the evidentiary claim for appeal | Unreviewable: Solek did not raise this issue in his petition for certification to appeal, so the Appellate Court declined to consider it |
| Whether Solek was denied a meaningful opportunity to investigate newly discovered evidence supporting good cause | Solek argued he needed time to investigate the alleged plea offer and the court foreclosed that opportunity | DOC noted Solek never requested more time or moved to continue the hearing and did not raise the point below or in his certification petition | Outside scope of review: claim unpreserved and Golding review unavailable because not presented in petition for certification |
Key Cases Cited
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (Sup. Ct.) (establishes two‑part standard when habeas court denies certification to appeal)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (Sup. Ct.) (further discussion of certification‑and‑merits procedure)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standard for unpreserved claims review)
- Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 202 Conn. App. 21 (appellate review of § 52‑470 good‑cause determinations)
- Owens v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 829 (standard for abuse‑of‑discretion showing for certification denial)
- Orcutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 724 (deference to trial court credibility findings)