Turner v. State
160 A.3d 398
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Corey Turner was convicted of murder and sentenced in October 1997; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Turner filed multiple postconviction actions over the years without success; on December 7, 2012, he filed a petition for a new trial under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-270, amended December 30, 2013.
- Turner alleged prosecutorial misconduct (sham plea negotiations, use of perjured/false identification testimony) that would have changed the outcome of his suppression motion and trial.
- The State pleaded as a special defense that the petition was time-barred by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-582(a), which requires petitions for new trial to be brought within three years after rendition of judgment.
- The trial court expressed concern that it lacked jurisdiction over an untimely petition, nonetheless heard evidence, and ultimately denied the petition as untimely and on the ground Turner failed to justify delay; Turner appealed.
- The Appellate Court concluded § 52-582’s three-year limit is jurisdictional for petitions for new trial in criminal cases; because Turner filed after the three-year period and no statutory exception applied, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and should have dismissed (not denied) the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Turner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 3-year limit in § 52-582 is jurisdictional for petitions for new trial | Turner: Court may equitably toll/ignore statutes of limitation in equitable proceedings and thus may hear an untimely § 52-270 petition | State: § 52-582 is a statutory time bar that deprives the court of jurisdiction; it is not subject to equitable tolling | Held: § 52-582’s mandatory language and statutory scheme show legislative intent that the 3-year period is jurisdictional; court lacked jurisdiction to hear untimely petition |
| Whether the trial court could exercise equitable discretion to consider the untimely petition | Turner: Even if statute expired, equitable principles permit relief (cites Dunham) | State: No discretion; failure to comply is jurisdictional and fatal | Held: Dunham is inapposite; § 52-270 is statutory (derogation from common law) and the directly applicable time limit leaves no room for equitable tolling |
| Whether the trial court’s procedural handling (hearing evidence then denying) was proper | Turner: Court considered merits and denial was appropriate | State: Court should not have proceeded if jurisdictional defect existed | Held: Because jurisdiction was lacking, the proper remedy is dismissal, not denial; judgment reversed as to form and remanded with direction to dismiss |
| Whether any statutory exceptions (e.g., DNA exception) or doctrines like fraudulent concealment could save the petition | Turner: Did not assert fraudulent concealment; relied on equitable tolling generally | State: No applicable statutory exception; petitioner bears burden to justify tolling | Held: No statutory exception applied; fraudulent concealment not pleaded here; petition untimely and jurisdictionally barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 257 Conn. 258 (Conn. 2001) (framework for deciding whether a time limit is subject-matter jurisdictional)
- State v. Ramos, 306 Conn. 125 (Conn. 2012) (legislative intent can make a time limit jurisdictional; § 52-582 referenced as example)
- Dunham v. Dunham, 204 Conn. 303 (Conn. 1987) (equitable proceedings may apply or analogize to statutes of limitation—distinguished here)
- Allen v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 324 Conn. 292 (Conn. 2016) (time limits in statutory waivers of sovereign immunity treated as jurisdictional)
- State v. Tabone, 301 Conn. 708 (Conn. 2011) (remedy for lack of jurisdiction: dismissal)
- Summerville v. Warden, 229 Conn. 397 (Conn. 1994) (statute of limitations is a critical limitation on court’s discretion regarding petitions for new trial)