Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dull v. Commissioner of Correction

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

August 1, 2017

NATHAN DULL
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

          Argued Date: April 27, 2017

         Procedural History

         Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, where the court, Oliver, J., granted the respondent's motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court; thereafter, the court, Oliver, J., issued an articulation of its decision. Affirmed.

          Robert L. O'Brien, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was William A. Adsit, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner).

          James M. Ralls, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Jo Anne Sulik, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

          Sheldon, Prescott and Bishop, Js.

         SYLLABUS

         Pursuant to statute (§ 52-470 [d]), there is a rebuttable presumption that a subsequent habeas petition has been delayed without good cause if, inter alia, such petition is filed two years or more after the date on which a final judgment has been rendered after the conclusion of appellate review on a prior habeas petition challenging the same conviction.

         Pursuant further to statute (§ 52-470 [e]), in cases in which the rebuttable presumption of delay without good cause under § 52-470 (d) applies, the habeas court shall issue, upon request by the respondent, an order to show cause why the petition should be permitted to proceed and not be dismissed.

         The petitioner, who had been convicted of murder, appealed to this court from the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. In dismissing the petition, which followed the petitioner's prior habeas petition challenging the same conviction, the habeas court determined, pursuant to § 52-470 (d) and (e), that the petition was untimely because it was filed more than two years after final judgment was rendered on appellate review of the habeas court's denial of his prior petition and because the petitioner failed to demonstrate, in response to the court's order to show cause, that his alleged mental health problems constituted good cause for the late filing. On appeal to this court, the petitioner claimed that he established good cause for the delay in the filing of his subsequent habeas petition. Held that the habeas court did not err in dismissing asuntimely the petitioner's subsequent habeas petition, there having been no fault in that court's conclusion that the petitioner failed to demonstrate good cause for the late filing.

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

          The petitioner, Nathan Dull, appeals from the habeas court's dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d).[1] Specifically, he argues that he established good cause for the delay in the filing of his third habeas corpus petition. We are not persuaded and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

         This appeal requires us to review the underpinnings of § 52-470, which concerns the summary disposal of habeas corpus petitions. In 2012, the General Assembly enacted No. 12-115 of the 2012 Public Acts (P.A. 12-115), which amended§ 52-470, byadding new subsections (c) through (e), establishing procedures for the court to respond to untimely habeas filings. Included in those amendments is a provision that there shall be a rebutta-ble presumption that a habeas petition challenging a conviction has been delayed without good cause if the petition was filed two years or more after the date on which a final judgment has been entered on a prior petition, or after October 1, 2014, whichever date is later. The statutory amendments also provide that when a petition is filed in which the rebuttable presumption of untimeliness applies, the court, upon request of the respondent, may issue an order to show cause why the petition should be permitted to proceed and not be dismissed. General Statutes § 52-470 (e).[2]

         In the matter at hand, the record reflects that the petitioner was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a in 1998 after a trial before a three judge panel. In rendering judgment of conviction, the panel rejected the petitioner's insanity defense, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. State v. Dull, 59 Conn.App. 579, 757 A.2d 1194 (2000). Thereafter, on December 19, 2002, the petitioner filed his first habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction. That petition was denied in 2005, and the habeas court's judgment was affirmed by this court on appeal. Dull v. Commissioner of Correction, 96 Conn.App. 787, 901 A.2d 1239 (2006). Later, on March 30, 2010, the petitioner filed a second habeas corpus petition, through which he again challenged his conviction. The second ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.