September 17, 2018
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. Affirmed.
L. O'Brien, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher Y.
Duby, for the appellant (petitioner).
A. Riggione, senior assistant state's attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney,
and David M. Carlucci, assistant state's attorney, for
the appellee (respondent).
DiPentima, C. J., and Lavine and Eveleigh, Js.
petitioner, Richard Langston, appeals from the dismissal of
his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely under
General Statutes § 52-470 (e). The petitioner argues
that he established good cause for the delayed filing of his
untimely petition, and the habeas court's judgment of
dismissal was improper. We are not convinced and, thus, affirm
the judgment of the habeas court.
following facts are relevant to this appeal. In May, 1999,
the petitioner was convicted of robbery in the first degree
in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2),
criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-217 and commission of a class A, B, or C
felony with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §
53-202k. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence
of twenty-five years of incarceration. On appeal, the
conviction was affirmed. State v. Langston, 67
Conn.App. 903, 786 A.2d 547, cert. denied, 259 Conn. 916, 792
A.2d 852 (2002).
2002, the petitioner filed his first petition for a writ of
habeas corpus alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of
trial counsel. Although the petition was granted by the
habeas court, on appeal that judgment was reversed and
certification to our Supreme Court was denied. See
Langston v. Commissioner of Correction, 104
Conn.App. 210, 224, 931 A.2d 967, cert. denied, 284 Conn.
941, 937 A.2d 697 (2007). Thereafter, in March, 2008, the
petitioner filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, which was denied in March, 2012. Langston v.
Murphy, United States District Court, Docket No.
3:08CV410 (DJS) (D. Conn. March 7, 2012). Then, in May, 2012,
he filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
state court. The petition was withdrawn on September 22,
2014, three days prior to a hearing on a motion to dismiss
and less than one month before the scheduled trial date.
December 3, 2014, the petitioner filed a new petition for a
writ of habeas corpus in state court, which is the subject of
the present appeal and alleged, inter alia, ineffective
assistance of trial counsel. Following the appearance of
counsel and the filing of an amended petition, the respondent
Commissioner of Correction filed a request for an order to
show cause as to why the present petition should not be
dismissed as untimely pursuant to § 52-470 (d) and
The petitioner filed an objection, and a hearing was held on
February 8, 2017. In its memorandum of decision, dated March
23, 2017, the habeas court found that the petition was
untimely because it was filed after the October 1, 2014
deadline and the petitioner had failed to show good
cause for the delay. Accordingly, the habeas court dismissed
the petition. Thereafter, the court granted the petition for
certification to appeal, and this appeal followed.
conclusions reached by the [habeas court] in its decision to
dismiss the habeas petition are matters of law, subject to
plenary review . . . Thus, [where] the legal conclusions of
the court are challenged, we must determine whether they are
legally and logically correct and whether they find support
in the facts that appear in the record.'' (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Foote v. Commissioner of
Correction, 170 Conn.App. 747, 753, 155 A.3d 823, cert.
denied, 352 Conn. 902, 155 A.3d 1271 (2017). ‘‘To
the extent that factual findings are challenged, this court
cannot disturb the underlying facts found by the habeas court
unless they are clearly erroneous.'' (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Carter v. Commissioner of
Correction, 133 Conn.App. 387, 392, 35 A.3d 1088, cert.
denied, 307 Conn. 901, 53 A.3d 217 (2012).
petitioner does not dispute the finding that his petition is
untimely. Rather, on appeal, he argues that the habeas court
erred in concluding that he failed to show good cause for the
delay. Specifically, the petitioner contends that (1) this
untimely petition does not violate the spirit or purpose of
§ 52-470 because it concerns issues that have been
litigated consistently since 1999, and (2) in withdrawing his
prior petition, he was following the advice of his former
attorney and did not understand the consequences of this
decision. We are not persuaded.
the purposes of . . . [§ 52-470 (e)], good cause
includes, but is not limited to, the discovery of new
evidence which materially affects the merits of the case and
which could not have been discovered by the exercise of due
diligence in time to meet the requirements of subsection (c)
or (d) of this section.'' General Statutes §
52-470 (e). The parties also agree that good cause has been
defined as a ‘‘substantial reason amounting in
law to a legal excuse for failing to perform an act required
by law . . . [a] [l]egally sufficient ground or