Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** VANCE JOHNSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 30100) Bishop, Gruendel and Pellegrino, Js. Submitted on briefs March 17 officially released June 1, 2010 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Schuman, J.) Laljeebhai R. Patel, special public defender, filed a brief for the appellant (petitioner). Gail P. Hardy, state s attorney, and Ronald G. Weller and Kevin J. Murphy, senior assistant state s attorneys, filed a brief for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. On May 30, 2008, the habeas court, Schuman, J., dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Vance Johnson, on the ground that it constituted a successive petition.1 After the petitioner filed his appeal, the court, Schuman, J., communicated in writing to counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent, the commissioner of correction, by letter dated December 23, 2008. The letter stated, in part: After reading the [petitioner s] brief, it appears that, due to the confusing state of the record in this case, I may have simply missed the fact that the petitioner attempted to raise various incompetency claims in his latest pro se petition. I therefore would have some willingness to sign a postjudgment order granting the petitioner a habeas trial on these claims. On the basis of the contents of this letter, which this court appreciates, we conclude that the matter should be remanded for further proceedings.2 The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law. 1 Practice Book § 23-29 provides in relevant part: The judicial authority may, at any time, upon its motion or upon motion of the respondent, dismiss the petition, or any count thereof, if it determines that . . . (3) the petition presents the same ground as a prior petition previously denied and fails to state new facts or to proffer new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the prior petition . . . . 2 The petitioner also claims that the court improperly denied his request for the appointment of counsel. In an articulation of its decision, however, the court stated that it did not formally deny the petitioner s request for appointment of counsel and that it never reached the issue of whether to appoint habeas trial counsel because the court dismissed the petition upon preliminary review pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (3). Because the habeas court has stated its willingness to afford the petitioner a hearing on his petition, and, thus, no longer believes that the matter should have been dismissed pursuant to Practice Book § 23-29 (3), we are confident that the court will address the petitioner s request for counsel.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
