Thompson 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. ****************************************************** RONALD THOMPSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (SC 17559) Borden, Norcott, Katz, Palmer and Zarella, Js. Argued September 19 officially released November 21, 2006 H. Owen Chace, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner). Melissa Streeto Brechlin, assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Scott Murphy, state s attorney, and Angela Macchiarulo, senior assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Ronald Thompson, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming in part the judgment of the habeas court, which denied his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, 91 Conn. App. 205, 207, 880 A.2d 965 (2005). The Appellate Court concluded that the habeas court properly had determined that the petitioner had not met his burden of proving that his trial attorney had been ineffective in her representation of him with regard to her attempts to notify him of a March 6, 2000 trial date. Id., 217 20. The Appellate Court further concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was actually innocent of the charge of failure to appear on March 6, 2000. Id., 220 22.2 We granted the petitioner s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: Did the Appellate Court properly affirm the habeas court s conclusion that the petitioner had not established ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his conviction for failure to appear in connection with the March 6, 2000 appearance? Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, 276 Conn. 920, 888 A.2d 89 (2005). This certified appeal followed. The petitioner claims that the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the habeas court s determination that his trial attorney s actions had not constituted ineffective assistance of counsel and that he had failed to establish actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, 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 The amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenged the petitioner s two convictions for failure to appear pursuant to General Statutes ยง 53a172, which provides: (a) A person is guilty of failure to appear in the first degree when (1) while charged with the commission of a felony and while out on bail or released under other procedure of law, he wilfully fails to appear when legally called according to the terms of his bail bond or promise to appear, or (2) while on probation for conviction of a felony, he wilfully fails to appear when legally called for a violation of probation hearing. (b) Failure to appear in the first degree is a class D felony. 2 The Appellate Court also concluded that the petitioner had received ineffective assistance of counsel leading to his conviction for failure to appear on March 2, 1989. Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 91 Conn. App. 210 16. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed in part the judgment of the habeas court and remanded the case with direction to render judgment granting the petition as to one count of failure to appear in the first degree. Id., 222. This court subsequently denied the conditional cross petition for certification to appeal filed by the respondent, the commissioner of correction, in which the respondent sought to challenge the Appellate Court s partial reversal of the judgment if the petitioner s petition for certification to appeal to this court were granted. Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, 276 Conn. 921, 888 A.2d 89 (2005).
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.
