214 Conn.App. 831
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Petitioner Victor Velasco was convicted of felony murder and conspiracy to commit robbery and received a lengthy prison sentence; he filed multiple prior appeals and habeas petitions without success.
- While a habeas petition was pending (filed 2014, amended through 2019), Velasco filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in federal court alleging unconstitutional conditions of confinement and settled that federal case on April 4, 2018.
- The settlement included a broad general release discharging the State from "any and all actions... from the beginning of the world to the date of this agreement," which the Commissioner argued encompassed Velasco’s pending habeas claims.
- The Commissioner moved to dismiss the habeas petition under Practice Book § 23-29; the habeas court found the release clear, unambiguous, and dispositive and granted dismissal; certification to appeal was allowed.
- On appeal Velasco conceded the release was clear and that he knowingly and voluntarily entered the agreement; he limited his challenge to substantive unconscionability (arguing the release’s breadth and prisoner bargaining inequality made it unenforceable).
- The appellate court affirmed: it held waivable habeas rights (per Nelson), found no procedural unconscionability in the record, and concluded the release was not substantively oppressive as applied to Velasco’s pending habeas petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the settlement release covers and bars the pending habeas petition | Release was intended only to resolve federal case; ambiguous scope | Release language is clear and unambiguously covers claims through settlement date, including the habeas petition | Held: Release applies; petitioner conceded ambiguity claim and court treated release as covering the habeas petition |
| Whether habeas rights are categorically non-waivable | Habeas rights shouldn't be waived (argued in briefing historically) | Habeas and constitutional rights can be waived if intentional and knowing | Held: Not per se non-waivable; Nelson allows waiver if knowing and voluntary |
| Procedural unconscionability due to inmate’s unequal bargaining power | Department dominated negotiations; inmate lacked meaningful choice | Velasco had counsel in federal case, conceded voluntary entry, introduced no evidence of unfair process | Held: No procedural unconscionability shown; petitioner abandoned this claim on appeal |
| Substantive unconscionability of the general release (breadth/oppression) | Release is "almost limitless" and oppressive for prisoner claims; unenforceable as to habeas | Release is time-limited (pre-settlement conduct), Velasco received consideration ($2,000, disciplinary vacatur, other concessions), and had prior unsuccessful chances to challenge convictions | Held: Not substantively unconscionable as applied to Velasco’s pending habeas petition; agreement enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 772 (Supreme Court: habeas and constitutional rights may be waived if the waiver is knowing and intentional)
- Audubon Parking Assocs. Ltd. P’ship v. Barclay & Stubbs, Inc., 225 Conn. 804 (trial court may summarily enforce clear, unambiguous settlement agreements)
- Smith v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc., 247 Conn. 342 (substantive unconscionability can void a contractual provision even absent procedural unconscionability)
- Bender v. Bender, 292 Conn. 696 (discussion of procedural and substantive unconscionability standards)
- Hottle v. BDO Seidman, LLP, 268 Conn. 694 (discussion adopting/quoting New York precedent on unconscionability)
- Cheshire Mortg. Serv., Inc. v. Montes, 223 Conn. 80 (distinguishing substantive vs. procedural unconscionability)
- Bristol v. Ocean State Job Lot Stores of Conn., Inc., 284 Conn. 1 (contract interpretation is plenary review when language is definitive)
- Velasco v. State, 253 Conn. 210 (underlying criminal conviction and direct appeal decision)