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.

Carolina v. Commissioner of Corr.

Appellate Court of Connecticut

September 3, 2019

TYRONE D. CAROLINA
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

         Argued May 28, 2019

          Appeal from Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court, Kwak, J.

         COUNSEL:

          Tyrone D. Carolina, self-represented, the appellant (petitioner).

          Edward Wilson, Jr., assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was William Tong, attorney general, for the appellee (respondent).

          Judges: Bright, Devlin and Eveleigh, Js.

          OPINION

Page 1069

          [192 Conn.App. 297] PER CURIAM.

          The petitioner, Tyrone D. Carolina, appeals, following the denial of his petition for certification, from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he claimed that he was wrongly classified as a sex offender. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly concluded that the classification by the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, did not violate his constitutional right to due process. We dismiss the appeal.

          The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The petitioner was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of risk of injury to a [192 Conn.App. 298] child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2),[1]

Page 1070

two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (1),[2] and one count of tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes § 53a-151.[3] See State v. Carolina, 143 Conn.App. 438, 440, 69 A.3d 341 and n.1, cert. denied, 310 Conn. 904, 75 A.3d 31 (2013).[4] The petitioner appealed to this court, which affirmed his conviction on direct appeal and determined that the jury reasonably could have found the following facts: " The [petitioner] was close friends with [the parents of the victim, K]. . . . On May 11, 2009, when K returned home from school, W, a family friend, noticed that K's behavior was unusual. K's cousin and her sister also were present at that time. They began questioning K, and she reluctantly revealed that the [petitioner] had had sexual contact with her. A few hours later, K's older brother, L, arrived at the house and saw that K was upset and shaking. He asked her to accompany him in his car so that they could talk in private. In response to L's questions, K told him of a recent incident in which the [petitioner] had sexually molested her. The Danbury [192 Conn.App. 299] police department was contacted and officers arrived at K's house later that evening. Thereafter, the [petitioner] was arrested and charged with offenses related to his sexual contact with K." (Footnote omitted.) Id. , 441 .

          While the petitioner was incarcerated, the respondent classified him as a sex offender and recommended that he participate in sex treatment education pursuant to the Department of Correction's offender classification manual.[5] On August 27, 2014, the self-represented petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas ...


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.