201 Conn.App. 196
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Turner was convicted in 1997 of murder and first‑degree assault for a 1995 shooting and sentenced to an effective 60‑year term; direct appeal and multiple postconviction petitions were unsuccessful.
- In a 2002 habeas trial (first habeas), Turner alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel Leon Kaatz; Turner later claimed Kaatz perjured himself at that habeas trial and that respondent’s counsel elicited the false testimony.
- Turner filed a 2014 (fifth) habeas petition (second amended in 2017) alleging: (1) due‑process violation based on perjured testimony at the first habeas trial; (2) suppression of K‑9 tracking evidence (Brady); and (3) failure to preserve K‑9 evidence (Youngblood/Morales). He later withdrew some counts.
- The habeas court dismissed Count 1 as nonjusticiable and for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction (it could not open the prior habeas judgment) and denied the K‑9 suppression/preservation claims after finding no proof a K‑9 track existed and crediting Sergeant O’Donnell’s testimony that he could not recall performing a track and would have reported it.
- The habeas court denied Turner's petition for certification to appeal; Turner filed a postjudgment motion to open the judgment and to disqualify the judge, which was denied as untimely and procedurally deficient (affidavit and good‑faith certificate problems) and the appellate court dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the habeas court abuse discretion by denying certification to appeal? | Turner: issues are debatable and deserve appellate review. | Respondent: issues are frivolous and not debatable among jurists of reason. | No abuse; court reasonably found claims frivolous and denied certification. |
| Was count one (alleged perjury at first habeas trial) justiciable and within subject‑matter jurisdiction? | Turner: newly discovered evidence shows counsel/persecutor elicited perjured testimony, violating due process and entitling him to relief. | Respondent: claim attacks prior habeas proceedings; present court cannot open prior habeas judgment and claim does not challenge lawfulness of custody. | Dismissed as nonjusticiable/moot and for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because the court could not provide practical relief. |
| Did the state suppress K‑9 tracking evidence (Brady) or fail to preserve it (Youngblood/Morales)? | Turner: police used/ignored K‑9 tracking; evidence was suppressed or not preserved, depriving him of due process. | Respondent: no evidence a K‑9 track occurred; witnesses could not recall; no suppressed or lost evidence shown. | Denied: habeas court found no proof a K‑9 track occurred; credibility findings supported denial; Brady/Youngblood/Morales claims fail. |
| Was denial of postjudgment motion to open judgment and to disqualify judicial authority improper? | Turner: judge was biased and the court’s rulings warrant disqualification and reopening. | Respondent: motion untimely, affidavit and good‑faith certificate deficient; no good cause shown; inadequate record for review. | Not reviewed/substantial: motion untimely, procedural requirements not met, no hearing created factual record; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 (1991) (standards for certifiable habeas appellate issues and when counsel‑related claims justify appeal)
- Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (statutory scheme conditioning habeas appeals on trial judge certification to curb frivolous appeals)
- Varley v. Varley, 180 Conn. 1 (1980) (standards for setting aside judgments on fraud/perjury and timing diligence requirements)
- Valvo v. Freedom of Information Commission, 294 Conn. 534 (2010) (only the court with continuing jurisdiction may open or modify its own judgments; limits on collateral reopening)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of favorable material evidence violates due process if material)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (1988) (federal due‑process test for failure to preserve potentially useful evidence requires bad faith by police)
- State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (1995) (Connecticut standard for failure‑to‑preserve evidence claims under state constitution requires a balancing test)
- State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (1984) (framework for assessing prejudice when evidence is unavailable)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (effective assistance of counsel standard; referenced in habeas context)