Instead, the court concluded that it lacked the authority to inquire into the sufficiency of the evidence or the resolution of the facts that supported the petitioner's conviction. In reaching this conclusion, the trial court relied primarily on Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 155 A. 221 (1931), Vena v. Warden, 154 Conn. 363, 225 A.2d 802 (1966), and McClain v. Manson, 183 Conn. 418, 439 A.2d 430 (1981). In Perell v. Warden, supra, the court concluded that a habeas corpus petitioner cannot challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction when he did not pursue the denial of his motion for a new trial by way of direct appeal.

It may not be employed to review irregularities or errors of procedure or questions as to the sufficiency of evidence. Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 342, 155 A. 221. . . ." Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 628, 124 A.2d 886, 889 (1956).

Additionally, the office of the state's attorney continues to represent the commissioner of correction in habeas corpus proceedings, which are civil proceedings through which habeas petitioners challenge the legality of their sentences. See, e.g., Connelly v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 374, 375-76, 780 A.2d 890 (2001) (opposing challenge to imposition of prison sentence on ground that it was product of judicial vindictiveness); Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30, 37, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (opposing challenge to legality of prison sentence); see also Consiglio v. Warden, 153 Conn. 673, 674, 220 A.2d 269 (1966) (opposing challenge to increase in original sentence by sentence review division of Superior Court on ground that state failed to provide petitioner with counsel at sentence review hearing); Perell v. Warden of State Prison, 113 Conn. 339, 340, 155 A. 221 (1931) (opposing habeas petition alleging unlawful confinement on ground of insufficiency of evidence); Ross v. Crofutt, 84 Conn. 370, 374, 80 A. 90 (1911) (opposing challenge to legality of petitioner's detention pending extradition to New York). E.g., Collins v. York, 159 Conn. 150, 153, 267 A.2d 668 (1970) ("[h]abeas corpus is a civil proceeding").

The writ of habeas corpus is available to a person restrained of his liberty who desires a hearing to determine the legality of his detention. Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 627, 124 A.2d 886. Where a person is confined pursuant to a judgment, the validity of his detention under that judgment is the proper issue to be determined. Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 342, 155 A. 221. Ordinarily, the writ is not available for any other purpose. 39 C.J.S. 428, Habeas Corpus, 4(a). The petition for the writ must allege facts supporting a claim of illegal confinement. Mayock v. Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital, 154 Conn. 704, 705, 224 A.2d 544. Questions which do not concern the lawfulness of the detention cannot properly be reviewed on habeas corpus.

Although in his amended petition, the constitution is mentioned in juxtaposition to this last claim, we will assume, for the purposes of this appeal, that the plaintiff sufficiently indicated in his amended petition that he was asserting federal constitutional claims. Our cases have enunciated the general proposition that habeas corpus cannot be used as an alternative to an appeal. Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 344, 155 A. 221; In re Bion, 59 Conn. 372, 386, 20 A. 662. In Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 628, 124 A.2d 886, however, although we reaffirmed this traditional common-law limitation on the scope of habeas corpus relief, we pointed out that an exception to this limitation should be made when the conviction which gave rise to the challenged detention was obtained in violation of the petitioner's rights under the federal constitution.

The Superior Court is one court throughout the state. Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 343, 155 A. 221; Allis v. Hall, 76 Conn. 322, 327, 56 A. 637; see General Statutes 51-1. The legislature had the power to prescribe, within the territorial limits of this state, where the resentencing could take place. State v. Pace, 129 Conn. 570, 572, 29 A.2d 755.

In re Bion, 59 Conn. 372, 386, 20 A. 662. It may not be employed to review irregularities or errors of procedure or questions as to the sufficiency of evidence. Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 342, 155 A. 221; 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) p. 725. Nor may defenses, such as insanity, the Statute of Limitations, alibi, and the like, available to but not pressed by the accused at the trial, be raised by habeas corpus.

The Superior Court is a court of general jurisdiction. Ansonia v. Studley, 67 Conn. 170, 177, 34 A. 1030; State ex rel. Morris v. Bulkeley, 61 Conn. 287, 374, 23 A. 186; Perell v. Warden of State Prison, 113 Conn. 339, 343, 155 A. 221. Its rules provide for the appointment of committees, Practice Book, 1922, p. 264, and the method of reviewing their conduct.

The writ of habeas corpus is available to a person restrained of his liberty who desires a hearing to determine the legality of his detention. Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 627, 124 A.2d 886. Where a person is confined pursuant to a judgment, the validity of his detention under that judgment is the proper issue to be determined. Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 342, 155 A. 221. Ordinarily, the writ is not available for any other purpose. 39 C.J.S. 428, Habeas Corpus, 4(a). The petition for the writ must allege facts supporting a claim of illegal confinement. Mayock v. Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital, 154 Conn. 704, 705, 224 A.2d 544. Questions which do not concern the lawfulness of the detention cannot properly be reviewed on habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus is available to a person restrained of his liberty who desires a hearing to determine the legality of his detention. Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 143 Conn. 624, 627, 124 A.2d 886. Where a person is confined pursuant to a judgment, the validity of his detention under that judgment is the proper issue to be determined. Perell v. Warden, 113 Conn. 339, 342, 155 A. 221. Ordinarily, the writ is not available for any other purpose. 39 C.J.S. 428, Habeas Corpus, 4(a). The petition for the writ must allege facts supporting a claim of illegal confinement. Mayock v. Superintendent, Norwich State Hospital, 154 Conn. 704, 705, 224 A.2d 544. Questions which do not concern the lawfulness of the detention cannot properly be reviewed on habeas corpus.