Argued
February 5, 2019
Page 508
Appeal
from the Hon. Edward J. Mullarkey, judge trial referee
Vishal
K. Garg, West Hartford,, for the appellant (petitioner).
Zenobia
G. Graham-Days, 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.
Page 509
[191
Conn.App. 86] The petitioner, Trevelle Dinham, appeals from
the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for
a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner argues
that the court improperly dismissed his claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for the failure to state a
claim upon which habeas relief can be granted. Specifically,
the petitioner argues that the court improperly dismissed his
claims that (1) he [191 Conn.App. 87] relied on
"governmental representations" that he would
receive risk reduction credit when he pleaded guilty to
manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, (2) the
respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, misconstrued and
misapplied several statutes pertaining to the petitioner
receiving a parole suitability hearing, earning risk
reduction credit in the future, and applying risk reduction
credit toward the advancement of the petitioners parole
eligibility date, and (3) the respondents customary
practices have created a vested liberty interest in receiving
a parole suitability hearing, earning future risk reduction
credits, and applying risk reduction credits to advance his
parole eligibility date. 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. On April 2, 2012, the petitioner
pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter in the first
degree with a firearm in violation of General Statutes §
53a-55a, which he committed on or about September 24,
1999,[1] and for which he was sentenced to
twenty-eight years of imprisonment. Thereafter, the then
self-represented petitioner commenced this action by filing a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On November 15, 2017,
the petitioner, after obtaining counsel, filed an eighteen
count amended habeas petition. On March 19, 2018, the court,
sua sponte, dismissed the amended petition for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and for the failure to state a
claim upon which habeas relief may be granted.[2] See [191
Conn.App. 88] Practice Book § 23-29.[3] Instead of
addressing the petitioners claims individually, the court
broadly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the habeas petition and that the petition had failed to
state a claim upon which habeas relief can be
granted.[4] The court granted the petitioners
Page 510
petition for certification to appeal.[5] The petitioner
timely filed the present appeal, challenging the dismissal of
ten of his claims. Additional facts will be set forth as
necessary.
Before
addressing the petitioners individual claims, we first set
forth the standards of review and relevant legal principles
applicable to the petitioners appeal. "Subject matter
jurisdiction involves the authority of the court to
adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action
before it .... [A] court lacks discretion to consider the
merits of a case over which it is without jurisdiction ....
The subject matter jurisdiction requirement may not be waived
by any party, and also may be raised by a party, or by the
court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, including
on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Pentland v. Commissioner of Correction, 176
Conn.App. 779, 784-85, 169 A.3d 851, cert. denied, [191
Conn.App. 89] 327 Conn. 978, 174 A.3d 800 (2017). "[I]n
order to invoke successfully the jurisdiction of the habeas
court, a petitioner must allege an interest sufficient to
give rise to habeas relief .... We have long held that
because [a] determination regarding a trial courts subject
matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is
plenary." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326
Conn. 357, 368, 163 A.3d 597 (2017). "With respect to
the habeas courts jurisdiction, [t]he scope of relief
available through a petition for habeas corpus is limited. In
order to invoke the trial courts subject matter jurisdiction
in a habeas action, a petitioner must allege that he is
illegally confined or has been deprived of his liberty ....
In other words, a petitioner must allege an interest
sufficient to give rise to habeas relief .... In order to ...
qualify as a constitutionally protected liberty [interest]
... the interest must be one that is assured either by
statute, judicial decree, or regulation." (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Boria v. Commissioner of
Correction, 186 Conn.App. 332, 342, 199 A.3d 1127
(2018).
"Likewise,
[w]hether a habeas court properly dismissed a petition
pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (2), on the ground that it
fails to state a claim upon which habeas corpus relief can be
granted, presents a question of law over which our review is
plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Perez
v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 326 Conn. at 368,
163 A.3d 597. "In reviewing whether a petition states a
claim for habeas relief, we accept its allegations as
true." Coleman v. Commissioner of Correction,137 Conn.App. 51, 55, 46 A.3d 1050 (2012). For ease of
discussion, we next provide a brief summary of the relevant
laws pertaining to the petitioners ability to receive a
...