September 11, 2019
for a new trial following the petitioner's conviction of
the crimes of assault in the first degree, attempt to commit
assault in the first degree, risk of injury to a child and
criminal possession of a firearm, brought to the Superior
Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the court,
Noble, J., granted the respondent's
motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon;
thereafter, the court denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, and the petitioner appealed to this court;
subsequently, the court, Noble, J., denied
the petitioner's petition for certification to appeal and
motion requesting leave to file a late petition for
certification; thereafter, the court, Noble,
J., denied the petitioner's motion for
reconsideration. Appeal dismissed.
Anthony Carter, self-represented, the appellant (petitioner).
Anne Sulik, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with
whom, on the brief, was Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney,
for the appellee (respondent).
DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.
DiPENTIMA, C. J.
self-represented petitioner, Anthony Carter, appeals from the
judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a new
trial. The court granted the motion for summary judgment
filed by the state of Connecticut on the ground that the
petitioner had filed the petition for a new trial past the
applicable statute of limitations. See General Statutes (Rev.
to 2001) § 52-582. The petitioner then sought to appeal
the trial court's decision. His petition for
certification to appeal was untimely, however, and the trial
court denied his petition. On appeal, the petitioner claims
that the court abused its discretion by denying his late
petition for certification to appeal. We disagree and,
accordingly, dismiss this appeal.
record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural
history. In 2002, the petitioner was convicted, after trial,
of assault in the first degree in violation of General
Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5), attempt to commit assault in
the first degree in violation of General Statutes
§§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-59 (a) (5), risk of
injury to a child in violation of General Statutes §
53-21 (a) (1) and criminal possession of a firearm in
violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53a-217
(a) (1). He was sentenced to a twenty-seven year prison term.
In 2004, this court affirmed the conviction. State v.
Carter, 84 Conn.App. 263, 283, 853 A.2d 565, cert.
denied, 271 Conn. 932, 859 A.2d 931 (2004), cert. denied, 544
U.S. 1066, 125 S.Ct. 2529, 161 L.Ed.2d 1120 (2005). The
petitioner has since filed unsuccessful actions in state and
federal courts, including multiple petitions seeking writs of
habeas corpus and a writ of error coram nobis, motions to
correct an illegal sentence and motions to set aside the
January, 2014, the petitioner commenced this action by filing
a petition for a new trial pursuant to General Statutes
§ 52-270. The petitioner alleged that he had been
convicted due to fraud by the prosecutor. Specifically, the
petitioner claimed that the prosecutor made
‘‘false or misleading allegations calculated to
deceive the court in order to obtain a ruling in the
state's favor'' regarding evidence of nine
millimeter shell casings found by the Hartford Police
responding to the petition, the state asserted the special
defense that the petitioner was not entitled to a new trial
because the petition had been filed more than three years
after judgment had been rendered and, thus, was barred by the
applicable statute of limitations under General Statutes
(Rev. to 2001) § 52-582. In his reply, the petitioner
responded that the statute of limitations was not applicable
because ‘‘judgments obtained by means of fraud
may be attacked at any time and, therefore, toll the statute
October, 2016, the state filed a motion for summary judgment
on the ground that the petition for a new trial was filed
more than eight years after the statute of limitations had
passed. Thereafter, the court granted the state's motion
for summary judgment on August 15, 2017. In its memorandum of
decision, the court, Noble, J., determined
that the petitioner had been sentenced on August 2, 2002,
and, therefore, the period for filing a petition for a new
trial ended on August 2, 2005. See General Statutes (Rev. to
2001) § 52-582.
court noted that the petitioner sought to establish fraud on
the part of the prosecutor and argued that such fraud would
toll the statute of limitations. The court found, however,
that the petitioner had not proffered any evidence
‘‘that there was any fraudulent concealment on
the part of the [prosecutor]. The [petitioner's] petition
and arguments in opposition of the motion for summary
judgment are devoid of any allegations that would speak to
the elements necessary to establish a fraudulent concealment
and are contrary to nearly every piece of evidence submitted
by the [state].'' The court then granted the
state's motion for summary judgment. The petitioner filed
a motion for reconsideration on August 23, 2017, which the
trial court denied on September 7, 2017.
petitioner filed his appeal to this court on October 3, 2017.
On February 7, 2018, the petitioner filed both a petition for
certification to appeal the denial of the petition for a new
trial and a request for leave to file a late petition for
certification, which the petitioner titled
‘‘Motion to Accept Late Filing of Petition for
Certification, '' with the trial court. On February
9, 2018, the court denied the petitioner's request for
leave to file a late petition for certification. The court
also denied the petition for certification. In response to