cause-and-prejudice standard in Connecticut

2017The majority in Jackson made clear, however, that "[i]n those rare instances in which a deliberate bypass is found, of course, habeas review would be barred for that reason alone, apart from the cause and prejudice standard." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, at 132, 629 A.2d 413 . "[T]he ability to bring a habeas corpus petition at any time is limited by the traditional doctrine of abuse of the writ based upon unnecessary successive petitions." Summerville v. Warden , 229 Conn. 397 , 428 n.15, 641 A.2d 1356 (1994).

2016See, e.g., Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 , 179–89, 982 A.2d 620 (2009); Council v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 477, 489 , 944 A.2d 340 (2008); Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 , 567–68, 941 A.2d 248 (2008); Correia v. Row- land, 263 Conn. 453, 462 , 820 A.2d 1009 (2003); Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124 , 135–36, 629 A.2d 413 (1993); Johnson v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 218 Conn. 403 , 408–409, 589 A.2d 1214 (1991). ‘‘The cause and prejudice standard is designed to pre- vent full review of issues in habeas corpus p

2019This change was accom- plished by applying the cause and prejudice standard in a series of cases in which procedural defaults arose in a variety of circumstances.’’ (Citations omitted.) Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 , 180–81, 982 A.2d 620 (2009).

2019This change was accom- plished by applying the cause and prejudice standard in a series of cases in which procedural defaults arose in a variety of circumstances.’’ (Citations omitted.) Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 , 180–81, 982 A.2d 620 (2009).

2016See, e.g., Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 , 179–89, 982 A.2d 620 (2009); Council v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 477, 489 , 944 A.2d 340 (2008); Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 , 567–68, 941 A.2d 248 (2008); Correia v. Row- land, 263 Conn. 453, 462 , 820 A.2d 1009 (2003); Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124 , 135–36, 629 A.2d 413 (1993); Johnson v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 218 Conn. 403 , 408–409, 589 A.2d 1214 (1991). ‘‘The cause and prejudice standard is designed to pre- vent full review of issues in habeas corpus p

2016See, e.g., Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 , 179–89, 982 A.2d 620 (2009); Council v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 286 Conn. 477, 489 , 944 A.2d 340 (2008); Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 285 Conn. 556 , 567–68, 941 A.2d 248 (2008); Correia v. Row- land, 263 Conn. 453, 462 , 820 A.2d 1009 (2003); Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 227 Conn. 124 , 135–36, 629 A.2d 413 (1993); Johnson v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 218 Conn. 403 , 408–409, 589 A.2d 1214 (1991). ‘‘The cause and prejudice standard is designed to pre- vent full review of issues in habeas corpus p

1993Ed. 2d 594 (1977), as opposed to the deliberate bypass rule; see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 , 83 S. Ct. 822 , 9 L.

1993Ed. 2d 594 (1977), as opposed to the deliberate bypass rule; see Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 , 83 S. Ct. 822 , 9 L.

2022See, e.g., Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 294 Conn. 182 (‘‘[i]n setting out [the cause and prejudice] standard, the [United States] Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the uniform application of procedural default standards, regardless of the specific nature of the procedural default’’); see also Coleman v. Thomp- son, 501 U.S. 722, 747 , 111 S. Ct. 2546 , 115 L.

2022See, e.g., Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 294 Conn. 182 (‘‘[i]n setting out [the cause and prejudice] standard, the [United States] Supreme Court emphasized the importance of the uniform application of procedural default standards, regardless of the specific nature of the procedural default’’); see also Coleman v. Thomp- son, 501 U.S. 722, 747 , 111 S. Ct. 2546 , 115 L.

2021This cause and prejudice test derives from Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S. Ct. 2497 , 53 L.

2021This cause and prejudice test derives from Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72 , 97 S. Ct. 2497 , 53 L.

2009Valeriano v. Bronson, 209 Conn. 75, 83 , 546 A.2d 1380 (1988). *182 In Coleman, the Supreme Court explicitly overruled Fay, holding that the cause and prejudice standard applies to “all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Coleman v. Thompson, supra, 501 U.S. 750 .

2009Valeriano v. Bronson, 209 Conn. 75, 83 , 546 A.2d 1380 (1988). *182 In Coleman, the Supreme Court explicitly overruled Fay, holding that the cause and prejudice standard applies to “all cases in which a state prisoner has defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Coleman v. Thompson, supra, 501 U.S. 750 .

2022Ed. 2d 640 (1991) (explaining that United States Supreme Court cases since Wainwright ‘‘have been unanimous in applying the cause and prejudice standard’’); New- land v. Commissioner of Correction, 331 Conn. 546, 561 , 206 A.3d 176 (2019) (claim of complete denial of trial counsel was subject to procedural default, but prej- udice is assumed); Council v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 286 Conn. 477, 489 , 944 A.2d 340 (2008) (challenge to validity of plea subject to procedural default when petitioner failed to file motion to withdraw guilty plea or to challenge validity of plea on direct appeal

2022Ed. 2d 640 (1991) (explaining that United States Supreme Court cases since Wainwright ‘‘have been unanimous in applying the cause and prejudice standard’’); New- land v. Commissioner of Correction, 331 Conn. 546, 561 , 206 A.3d 176 (2019) (claim of complete denial of trial counsel was subject to procedural default, but prej- udice is assumed); Council v. Commissioner of Correc- tion, 286 Conn. 477, 489 , 944 A.2d 340 (2008) (challenge to validity of plea subject to procedural default when petitioner failed to file motion to withdraw guilty plea or to challenge validity of plea on direct appeal

2018There is no need to confuse this process by utilizing the cause and prejudice test." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, at 570-71, 941 A.2d 248 .

2016When a petitioner who has not sought to withdraw his plea or challenged it on direct appeal alleges in a habeas proceeding that his guilty plea was tendered as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, "the court need not apply the cause and prejudice test ... in determining whether to grant the habeas petition because application of the two-pronged test in Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ], as modified for guilty plea cases by Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), accomplishes the same result.... [I]f a

2024The petitioner could not prevail on his claim that the habeas court improp- erly determined that he failed to satisfy the cause and prejudice test set forth in Reed v. Ross ( 468 U.S. 1 ) to excuse his procedural default for failing to raise the due process claim during his criminal trial; the petitioner was unable to rely on Dickson to demonstrate cause and prejudice to overcome the respondent’s special defense of procedural default, as our Supreme Court explicitly stated that Dickson may not be applied retroactively on collateral review. 2.

2016If there is no default, there is no basis to engage in the cause and prejudice analysis to determine whether procedural default is excused. 5 ‘‘ ‘Abduct’ means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by either (A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found, or (B) using or threatening to use physical force or intimidation.’’ General Statutes § 53a-91 (2). ‘‘ ‘Restrain’ means to restrict a person’s movements intentionally and unlawfully in such a manner as to interfere substantially with his liberty by moving him from one place to another, or by co

2015See Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 433 , 447–48 n.18, 936 A.2d 611 (2007) (emphasizing that ‘‘habeas court generally should decide the threshold issue of cause and prejudice when it is raised as a defense because, in the ordinary case, failing to do so undermines the prudential considerations that the cause and prejudice rule was designed to promote’’).

2015See Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 284 Conn. 433 , 447–48 n.18, 936 A.2d 611 (2007) (emphasizing that ‘‘habeas court generally should decide the threshold issue of cause and prejudice when it is raised as a defense because, in the ordinary case, failing to do so undermines the prudential considerations that the cause and prejudice rule was designed to promote’’).

2008See, e.g., Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 734 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001). “[When] no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided [to the habeas court], [the *490 reviewing] court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2007“Where no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided, this court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2008See, e.g., Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 734 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001). “[When] no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided [to the habeas court], [the *490 reviewing] court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2007“Where no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided, this court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2008See, e.g., Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 734 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001). “[When] no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided [to the habeas court], [the *490 reviewing] court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2008See, e.g., Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 734 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001). “[When] no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided [to the habeas court], [the *490 reviewing] court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2016When a petitioner who has not sought to withdraw his plea or challenged it on direct appeal alleges in a habeas proceeding that his guilty plea was tendered as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, "the court need not apply the cause and prejudice test ... in determining whether to grant the habeas petition because application of the two-pronged test in Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ], as modified for guilty plea cases by Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), accomplishes the same result.... [I]f a

2016When a petitioner who has not sought to withdraw his plea or challenged it on direct appeal alleges in a habeas proceeding that his guilty plea was tendered as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel, "the court need not apply the cause and prejudice test ... in determining whether to grant the habeas petition because application of the two-pronged test in Strickland [v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ], as modified for guilty plea cases by Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 , 59, 106 S.Ct. 366 , 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985), accomplishes the same result.... [I]f a

2008See, e.g., Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 734 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001). “[When] no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided [to the habeas court], [the *490 reviewing] court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2008See, e.g., Milner v. Commissioner of Correction, 63 Conn. App. 726, 734 , 779 A.2d 156 (2001). “[When] no evidence [of cause and prejudice] has been provided [to the habeas court], [the *490 reviewing] court can independently conclude that the petitioner has failed to meet the cause and prejudice test.” Daniels v. Warden, 28 Conn. App. 64, 72 , 609 A.2d 1052 , cert. denied, 223 Conn. 924 , 614 A.2d 820 (1992).

2025Page 28 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 30 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Canady v. Commissioner of Correction On appeal, the petitioner focuses on the habeas court’s characterization of his due process claim as ‘‘novel.’’ He does not challenge the court’s conclusion that he failed to establish ineffective assistance of appel- late counsel, instead stating that ‘‘[t]here is no law on point in this jurisdiction and thus nothing that a reason- ably competent appellate attorney should have researched and raised.’’ He contends, for the first time on appeal, that the novelty of his claim, in and of itself, constit

2024Because the prejudice prong of the cause and prejudice standard requires the petitioner to show that the trial court would have found him incompetent had the issue been raised at trial 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 15 Burgos v. Commissioner of Correction or on direct appeal, this inquiry must necessarily include the additional showing that the petitioner was not restorable to competency at the time of trial.’’ (Citation omitted; emphasis added.) Saunders v. Commissioner of Correction, 343 Conn. 1 , 29 n.15, 272 A.3d 169 (2022).

2019See Bowers v. Commissioner of Correction, 33 Conn. App. 449, 452 , 636 A.2d 388 , cert. denied, 228 Conn. 929 , 640 A.2d 115 (1994).

2008See Fernandez v. Commissioner of Correction, 96 Conn. App. 251 , 255-56 n.3, 900 A.2d 54 (2006); Taylor v. Commissioner of Correction, 94 Conn. App. 772 , 775 n.3, 895 A.2d 246 (2006), rev’d in part on other grounds, 284 Conn. 433 , 936 A.2d 611 (2007); 10 cf. Bowers v. Commissioner of Correction, 33 Conn. App. 449 , 453 n.3, 636 A.2d 388 (“[t]he petitioner need not satisfy the cause and prejudice test to obtain review of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel because, if a petitioner succeeds on the merits of his claim, he will necessarily have proven both cause and prejudice”), cert.