United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
Jeffrey Alker Meyer United States District Judge
Joseph Ancona is a Connecticut state prisoner who is serving
out a 21-year sentence following his conviction on multiple
counts of arson and attempted larceny. He has filed this
pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, I
will dismiss the petition on the ground that it was not
timely filed within one year of when his state court
convictions became final.
February 17, 1999, a state court jury in Hartford found
petitioner guilty on multiple counts of arson and attempted
larceny. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 21
years of imprisonment on June 22, 1999. The Connecticut
Supreme Court affirmed his conviction on May 22, 2001.
See State v. Ancona, 256 Conn. 214, 215-16 (2001).
initially filed for sentence review pursuant to Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 51-195. The Sentence Review Division affirmed
petitioner's sentence on February 25, 2004. See State
v. Ancona, 2004 WL 504581 (Conn. Super. 2004).
meantime, on December 6, 2001, petitioner filed the first of
several state court habeas corpus petitions. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed
petitioner's first petition on March 25, 2003. See
Ancona v. Warden, 2003 WL 1875104 (Conn. Super. 2003).
On April 3, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for
certification of the habeas court's decision, which was
denied the same day. See Doc. #24-7 at 34-35, 37;
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-470(g). Petitioner did not further
appeal; rather, about a year later, on March 11, 2004,
petitioner filed his second state court habeas corpus
August 10, 2005, the parties entered into a stipulation to
reinstate petitioner's right to file an appeal from the
denial of his first habeas petition, in exchange for
dismissal of the second habeas petition with prejudice. Doc.
#24-18 at 63. Petitioner filed an appeal from his first
habeas petition on September 26, 2005, and the Connecticut
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on April 3, 2007.
See Ancona v. Comm'r of Corr., 100 Conn.App.
283, 284 (2007). The Connecticut Supreme Court denied further
review on May 15, 2007. See Ancona v. Comm'r of
Corr., 282 Conn. 918 (2007).
filed a third state court habeas petition on July 16, 2007.
The trial court dismissed this petition on June 5, 2009,
see Ancona v. Warden, 2009 WL 1958728 (Conn. Super.
2009), and petitioner did not appeal the decision.
filed a fourth state court habeas petition on October 30,
2009, followed by an amended petition on January 7, 2010.
Doc. #24-17 at 36. The trial court dismissed the amended
petition on August 16, 2010. See Ancona v. Warden,
2010 WL 5491330 (Conn. Super. 2010). Petitioner appealed, and
the Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on April
3, 2012. See Ancona v. Comm'r of Corr., 134
Conn.App. 904 (2012). Petitioner did not seek discretionary
review by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
meantime, petitioner filed a fifth state court habeas
petition on February 1, 2011. On May 9, 2011, the trial court
dismissed the petition, and this dismissal was affirmed by
the Connecticut Appellate Court on February 12, 2013. See
Ancona v. Comm'r of Corr., 140 Conn.App. 905 (2013).
The Connecticut Supreme Court denied review on June 5, 2013.
See Ancona v. Comm'r of Corr., 309 Conn. 901
the pendency of the fifth state court habeas action,
petitioner filed a motion on March 11, 2011, to correct an
illegal sentence pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22. Doc.
#24-26 at 20. The trial court denied petitioner's motion
on June 1, 2011, see Doc. #24-26 at 31, and
petitioner appealed. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed
the judgment of the trial court on May 14, 2013, see
State v. Ancona, 142 Conn.App. 907 (2013), and the
Connecticut Supreme Court denied review on October 9, 2013.
See State v. Ancona, 310 Conn. 922 (2013).
Petitioner then sought certiorari from the U.S. Supreme
Court, but certiorari was denied on June 9, 2014. See
Ancona v. Connecticut, 134 S.Ct. 2740 (2014).
September 29, 2014, petitioner allegedly mailed for filing
the instant pro se federal petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which was
then filed on October 10, 2014. He raises the following
claims for habeas corpus relief: (1) that he suffered
prejudice because the state trial court did not sever the
arson charges from the larceny charges; (2) that the State
withheld exculpatory evidence and presented false evidence;
(3) that the trial judge was biased against petitioner due to
petitioner's national origin; and (4) that petitioner was
denied the effective assistance of counsel.
federal court “shall entertain an application for a
writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground
that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(a). Federal law, however, imposes stringent time
limitations for prisoners to seek federal habeas corpus
relief. Subject to certain exceptions, federal law requires
that a federal petition for habeas ...