September 11, 2019
from Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Schuman,
Anthony Carter, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
Riggione, Meriden, senior assistant states attorney, with
whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, states attorney, and
Richard J. Rubino, senior assistant states attorney, for the
C. J., and Alvord and Pellegrino, Js.
Conn.App. 203] The self-represented defendant, Anthony
Carter, appeals from the trial courts dismissal of his
motion to set aside a judgment of conviction imposed on
August 2, 2002. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the
prosecutor committed fraud by writing in the states response
to the defendants motion for reconsideration, dated June 2,
2017, that it was not "[t]he appropriate mechanism"
to secure relief and that a "motion for a new trial or a
motion to set aside the judgment" would be; (2) the
courts determination that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over his motion to set aside his judgment of
conviction was erroneous; and (3) even if the court did not
err in its subject matter jurisdiction determination, the
state "[submitted] to the jurisdiction of the
court." The state argues, in part, that because the
defendant fails to challenge all independent grounds for the
courts adverse ruling, his appeal is rendered [194 Conn.App.
204] moot. We agree with the state. Accordingly, we dismiss
the defendants appeal.
following relevant facts are set forth in our decision from
one of the defendants prior appeals.
State v. Carter, 139 Conn.App. 91, 55 A.3d 771
(2012), cert. denied, 307 Conn. 954, 58 A.3d 974 (2013).
"[T]he defendants prosecution arose from the terrible
consequences of a drug turf war, in which a stray bullet
fired from the defendants gun struck and seriously injured a
seven year old girl.... Following a jury trial, the defendant
was convicted 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 §
53a-217 (a) (1), and the court rendered judgment accordingly.
The court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term
of twenty-seven years incarceration." (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 92, 55 A.3d 771.
20, 2017, the defendant filed a motion to set aside the
judgment. Therein, the defendant claimed
"after-discovered fraud on the court." (Internal
quotation marks omitted.) In his memorandum of law in support
of the operative motion, the defendant expounded "that
the prosecution altered, concealed and/or removed from the
trial proceedings documents prepared by the Hartford Police
Department with purpose to impair its verity and
availability, and that the prosecution passed the altered
document off to the defense, representing it to be [simply]
a distance measurement, knowing it to be false." On
August 3, 2017, [194 Conn.App. 205] the state moved to
dismiss the operative motion, arguing that the trial court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court,
Schuman, J., granted the states motion on
October 30, 2017.
courts ruling, it detailed part of the defendants
"voluminous history" of postconviction litigation,
including a motion to open and set aside the judgment of
conviction filed in 2010. The defendant based his 2010 motion
on "fraud concerning ballistics evidence and reports
prepared by the Hartford Police Department about that
evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) That
motion was denied by the court, Gold, J., on two
grounds: (1) "the motion was filed well beyond the four
month period after the entry of the criminal conviction and
judgment"; and (2) "the motion was barred by
collateral estoppel in that Judge Nazzaro had rejected the
same claim in the defendants third habeas
petition." Applying this history to the operative
motion, Judge Schuman concluded that the defendants claim
bore "only semantic differences from the defendants
claim ... raised in [the 2010] motion to open." As that
claim had already been considered and rejected multiple times
before, most recently by Judge Gold and this court, the trial
court concluded that it "necessarily must grant the
states motion to dismiss ...."
court further concluded that, even if the defendants claim
were to be treated as distinct from the one he had raised in
2010, the operative motion still warranted dismissal. First,
the court cited to State v. Carrillo Palencia, 162
Conn.App. 569, 580-82, 132 A.3d 1097, cert. denied, 320 Conn.
927, 133 A.3d 459 (2016), ...