Stevenson v. Commissioner of Correction, 231 Conn. App. 262

Robert Stevenson was convicted of felony murder at age sixteen following a guilty plea and sentenced to thirty-two years’ incarceration.
In 2018, Stevenson filed a habeas petition, claiming his conviction and sentence were unconstitutional due to ineffective assistance of trial counsel and procedural defects in his plea.
Several scheduling orders allowed Stevenson time to amend his petition, but counsel withdrew after submitting an Anders brief, finding no nonfrivolous issues.
After Stevenson resumed self-representation, the habeas court conducted a hearing and dismissed the petition for failure to show good cause for trial under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470(b)(1), finding all claims frivolous.
The habeas court denied certification to appeal; Stevenson challenged the dismissal, particularly the court's timing in raising the good cause issue before pleadings were closed.
The Appellate Court reviewed whether the habeas court erred both in its timing and in denying certification to appeal, considering the preservation and merits of those challenges.

Issue	Stevenson’s Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether denial of certification to appeal was proper	Court abused discretion by denying certification on a debatable legal issue	Certification properly denied; claim was not preserved or was frivolous	Abuse of discretion; certification denial reversed
Whether the court could raise and decide good cause under § 52-470(b)(1) before pleadings closed	Not permitted by statute; deprived him of due process/opportunity to amend	Dismissal appropriate to conserve judicial resources; petitioner’s claims were all frivolous	Statute unambiguous: only after close of pleadings may court decide good cause; early dismissal reversed
Whether petitioner preserved his legal challenge	Issue properly before the court; dismissal explicitly based on the good cause issue	Claim unpreserved and not entitled to review	Claim reviewable as issue was decided by habeas court and involves fundamental due process
Whether claims in the habeas petition were frivolous as a matter of law	Claims had merit or deserved full consideration	All claims frivolous, supported by plea and sentencing transcripts	Did not reach merits due to procedural ruling; reversal based on process

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (sets procedure for counsel withdrawal when appeal is deemed frivolous)
Kelsey v. Commissioner of Correction, 329 Conn. 711 (Conn. 2018) (interprets § 52-470(b)(1); court may determine good cause for trial only after pleadings closed)
Ayuso v. Commissioner of Correction, 215 Conn. App. 322 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022) (standards for appeal from habeas court denial of certification)