Jordan v. Commissioner of Correction

         Argued February 5, 2019

         Appeal from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Tolland, Edward J. Mullarkey, Judge Trial Referee.

Page 116

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 117

          Arthur L. Ledford, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner).

         Steven R. Strom, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was George Jepsen, former attorney general, for the appellee (respondent).

         Keller, Elgo and Harper, Js.

          OPINION

         HARPER, J.

         [190 Conn.App. 558] The petitioner, Bryan Jordan, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for the failure to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted. The petitioner’s sole claim on appeal is that the habeas court improperly dismissed his claim that the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, entered into, and subsequently breached, a purported contract with the petitioner to award him risk reduction credit in exchange for his adherence to his offender accountability plan. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

         The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The petitioner was found guilty, following a jury trial, of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-55a (a) and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a). The charges stemmed from a shooting death that occurred on September 19, 2005. See State v. Jordan, 117 Conn.App. 160, 161, 978 A.2d 150, cert. denied, 294 Conn. 904, 982 A.2d 648 (2009). On April 27, 2007, the petitioner was sentenced to a total effective sentence [190 Conn.App. 559] of forty-five

Page 118

years of incarceration.^[1] The petitioner’s conviction was upheld on direct appeal by this court. See id.

          Thereafter, the then self-represented petitioner initiated this action by filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On November 6, 2017, the petitioner, after obtaining counsel, filed the operative amended petition alleging, inter alia, breach of contract. Specifically, the petitioner’s breach of contract claim alleges that the respondent, by virtue of having the petitioner sign his offender accountability plan, agreed to award the petitioner five days of risk reduction credit per month in exchange for the petitioner’s adherence to the offender accountability plan. Further, he alleges that, once No. 15-216 of the 2015 Public Acts (P.A. 15-216) came into effect, ...