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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners 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, ...