Argued
September 11, 2019.
Appeal
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford,
where the court, Noble, J.
Page 887
Anthony Carter, self-represented, the appellant (petitioner).
Jo Anne
Sulik, supervisory assistant states attorney, with whom, on
the brief, was Gail P. Hardy, states attorney, for the
appellee (respondent).
DiPentima,
C. J., and Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.
OPINION
DiPENTIMA,
C.J.
[194
Conn.App. 210] The 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 courts 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.
The
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 [194 Conn.App. 211] seeking writs of
habeas corpus and a writ of error coram nobis, motions to
correct an illegal sentence and motions to set aside the
judgment.[1]
In
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 states favor" regarding evidence
of nine millimeter shell casings found by the Hartford Police
Department.
Page 888
In
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 of
limitations."
In
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 states 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 [194 Conn.App. 212] a
petition for a new trial ended on August 2, 2005. See General
Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 52-582.[2]
The
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 [petitioners] 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 ...