Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction

274 Conn. 563 (2005) · Supreme Court of Connecticut · July 26, 2005

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s dismissal of Anthony W. Oliphant’s habeas petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the petition challenged only expired April 1995 convictions and that the petitioner was not in custody under those convictions when he filed the petition. The court also declined to apply the continuous-custody exception because the record and briefing did not establish that invalidating the expired convictions would advance the petitioner’s release date.

Holdings

  1. The habeas court properly construed the petition as challenging only the April convictions and sentences, not the petitioner's unexpired September conviction.
  2. General Statutes § 52-466 makes custody on the conviction under attack a jurisdictional requirement, and the habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner was not in custody on the expired April convictions when he filed his petition.
  3. Under General Statutes § 53a-38 (b), a sentence imposed after an earlier sentence commences when the prisoner is received into the custody to which the later sentence was imposed; concurrent sentences imposed at different times for separate convictions do not automatically commence on the same date.
  4. The court declined to decide whether the Garlotte continuous-custody exception applies to concurrent sentences because the petitioner inadequately briefed the issue and the record did not establish that invalidating the April convictions would advance his release date.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the pro se habeas petition should have been construed broadly as challenging the petitioner's unexpired September conviction.
  2. Whether the habeas court had subject matter jurisdiction under General Statutes § 52-466 when the petitioner was no longer in custody on the expired April convictions at the time he filed the petition.
  3. Whether the petitioner established that the expired April convictions could affect his release date under the continuous-custody exception recognized in Garlotte v. Fordice.
  4. Whether the habeas court improperly dismissed the petition sua sponte without notice or a hearing; the court declined to reach this issue because it was outside the certified question.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (21)

  • Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 10, 11-16, 847 A.2d 1080 (2004)(followed in procedural history; appellate judgment reviewed)
  • Neiman v. Yale University, 270 Conn. 244, 250-51, 851 A.2d 1165 (2004)(followed)
  • ABC, LLC v. State Ethics Commission, 264 Conn. 812, 822-23, 826 A.2d 1077 (2003)(followed)
  • Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S. Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251 (1976)(persuasive authority)
  • Hill v. Williams, 74 Conn. App. 654, 655-56, 813 A.2d 130, cert. denied, 263 Conn. 918, 822 A.2d 242 (2003)(followed)
  • Higgins v. Hartford County Bar Assn., 109 Conn. 690, 692, 145 A. 20 (1929)(followed)
  • Strobel v. Strobel, 64 Conn. App. 614, 618, 781 A.2d 356, cert. denied, 258 Conn. 937, 786 A.2d 426 (2001)(followed)
  • Jenkins v. Commissioner of Correction, 52 Conn. App. 385, 406, 726 A.2d 657, cert. denied, 249 Conn. 920, 733 A.2d 233 (1999)(followed)
  • Broadnax v. New Haven, 270 Conn. 133, 174, 851 A.2d 1113 (2004)(followed)
  • Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 80 Conn. App. 613, 614, 836 A.2d 471 (2003), cert. denied, 268 Conn. 907, 845 A.2d 412 (2004)(followed in procedural history)

Showing top 10 of 21.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Connecticut Supreme Court