Hodge v. Commissioner of Correction

Citation: Not availableDocket: AC41627

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court; November 21, 2022; Connecticut; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The "officially released" date noted at the beginning of each opinion indicates when the opinion is published in the Connecticut Law Journal or released as a slip opinion, serving as the starting point for filing post-opinion motions and certification petitions. All opinions may undergo modifications prior to their official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Appellate Reports. In cases of discrepancies between advance release versions and the final published versions, the latter is authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history of opinions in the Connecticut Law Journal and official reports are copyrighted, requiring written permission for reproduction and distribution.

In the case of MARCUS HODGE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 41627), the petitioner, convicted of manslaughter and evading responsibility, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging improper application of changes to a risk reduction credit program. The habeas court dismissed the amended petition without prior notice or an opportunity for the petitioner to respond, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The petitioner appealed, and the court concluded that while the habeas court was not required to hold a hearing before dismissal, it must provide prior notice and allow the petitioner to respond if it intends to dismiss on its own motion. The court reversed the habeas court's judgment and mandated compliance with this procedural requirement upon remand. The case was argued on September 19 and officially released on November 22, 2022.

The petitioner appeals the dismissal of his amended habeas petition under Practice Book 23-29, arguing that the court erred by not providing notice or a hearing before the dismissal. Citing recent Supreme Court decisions, the appellate court found that the habeas court's action was improper due to the lack of prior notice and opportunity for the petitioner to respond. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the habeas court's judgment. 

The procedural history reveals that the petitioner filed his initial habeas corpus petition on June 29, 2015, and subsequently requested counsel and a fee waiver, both of which were granted. On November 15, 2017, he submitted an amended eighteen-count petition, claiming improper retroactive application of legislative amendments concerning risk reduction earned credits related to his 2011 conviction for manslaughter and evading responsibility. Specifically, counts two, six, and twelve of the amended petition contested the retroactive application of specific laws and argued a due process violation regarding reliance on governmental representations.

On March 19, 2018, the habeas court dismissed the amended petition, asserting that the petitioner had no right to discretionary risk reduction earned credit and that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, determining the petition did not state a viable claim for habeas relief. The court formally dismissed the petition, leading the petitioner to seek certification to appeal, which was granted on April 12, 2018. The appeal followed.

The Supreme Court's decisions in Brown v. Commissioner of Correction and Boria v. Commissioner of Correction establish that a habeas court must provide prior notice and an opportunity for the petitioner to respond before dismissing a habeas petition on its own motion under Practice Book 23-29. Although a full hearing is not mandatory, the requirement for notice and response is crucial. In this case, the court dismissed the amended petition without following these procedures, necessitating a reversal of the dismissal and a remand to the habeas court. On remand, the habeas court must first determine if there are grounds to decline to issue the writ, per Practice Book 23-24. If it decides to dismiss the petition again, it must afford the petitioner prior notice and the chance to respond. The Supreme Court highlighted that prior to its decision in Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction, the appropriate procedures were not clear, reinforcing the necessity of remanding cases to ensure compliance with these requirements.

Footnote 11 of Brown raises potential complications regarding the remand process for habeas petitions. It suggests that, in certain cases prior to Gilchrist, a remand could be directed to assess whether to decline the issuance of a writ, despite the writ already being issued. In the current case, however, the petitioner had initially filed a habeas petition that was dismissed under Practice Book 23-29, but later submitted an amended petition over two years later, after obtaining counsel. The court finds that footnote 11 is not applicable here, as it would be illogical to suggest remanding the case to reconsider the original petition after the issuance of the writ, which could undermine the validity of the amended petition. Therefore, the judgment of dismissal is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

If the habeas court chooses to dismiss the amended petition again under Practice Book 23-29, it must provide prior notice and allow the petitioner an opportunity to respond, in accordance with the mandates of Brown and Boria. The court notes that the petitioner claims the dismissal of certain counts in the amended petition was improper, but since the dismissal without notice is already deemed erroneous, that issue does not need further discussion. The petitioner appealed after receiving a fee waiver and counsel, with various stays imposed on the appeal while awaiting resolutions in related cases. The stay was ultimately lifted following a dismissal of another case by the Supreme Court on mootness grounds.

On October 17, 2022, the court ordered both parties to submit simultaneous supplemental briefs regarding the implications of the Supreme Court's decisions in Brown and Boria on this appeal. The habeas court had previously issued a JDNO notice on October 10, 2017, indicating that jurisdiction could be raised at any time but did not specifically inform the petitioner of a potential dismissal of the amended petition on jurisdictional grounds. The notice was issued prior to the filing of the amended petition and lacked an invitation for the petitioner to respond before the dismissal. In its supplemental brief, the respondent contended that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to be heard through the appeal and that the court should handle the merits of the claims. However, the court rejected this argument, interpreting Brown and Boria as necessitating a reversal of the dismissal and a remand to the habeas court. Both parties concurred that, should the dismissal be reversed, the court should not direct the habeas court to perform a screening review on remand.