Hastings 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. ****************************************************** TAMMY HASTINGS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (SC 17247) Sullivan, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued March 10 officially released July 26, 2005 Adele V. Patterson, assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner). Christopher T. Godialis, assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin T. Kane, state s attorney, and Kathleen A. Dwyer, deputy assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Tammy Hastings, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the habeas court, which dismissed her petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction, 82 Conn. App. 600, 601, 847 A.2d 1009 (2004). The Appellate Court concluded that the petitioner, who had mailed her habeas petition while she was incarcerated on the conviction under attack, but whose petition was not date and time stamped as being received by the New London clerk s office until after her conviction had expired fully, was not in the custody of the respondent, the commissioner of correction, within the meaning of General Statutes § 52-4661 at the time her petition was filed. Id., 603. Accordingly, the Appellate Court determined that the habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider her petition. Id., 603 604. We granted the petitioner s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioner s petition? Hastings v. Commissioner of Correction, 271 Conn. 901, 859 A.2d 560 (2004). The petitioner claims on appeal that the custody requirement in § 52-466 is not jurisdictional and that the Appellate Court improperly failed to exercise every presumption in favor of the habeas court s jurisdiction. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, and in light of our decision in Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507, A.2d (2005), which was released on the same date as this opinion and in which we concluded that the custody requirement in § 52-466 is jurisdictional, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 General Statutes § 52-466 provides in relevant part: (a) An application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be made to the superior court or to a judge thereof for the judicial district in which the person whose custody is in question is claimed to be illegally confined or deprived of his liberty, provided any application made by or on behalf of a person confined in the Connecticut Correctional Institution, Enfield-Medium or the Carl Robinson Correctional Institution, Enfield, shall be made to the superior court or a judge thereof for the judicial district of Tolland. (b) The application shall be verified by the affidavit of the applicant for the writ alleging that he truly believes that the person on whose account the writ is sought is illegally confined or deprived of his liberty. (c) The writ shall be directed to some proper officer to serve and return, who shall serve the same by putting a true and attested copy of it into the hands of the person who has the custody of the body of the person who is directed to be presented upon the writ. If the officer fails to make immediate return of the writ, with his actions thereon, he shall pay fifty dollars to the person so held in custody. . . .
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.
