From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Skelly v. Commissioner of Correction

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Apr 5, 2011
14 A.3d 1080 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)

Opinion

(AC 28349)

Syllabus

The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that he had been subject to double jeopardy in his criminal trial. The habeas court rendered judgment denying the petition and, thereafter, denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court Held that the habeas court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, the petitioner having failed to show that the issues raised on appeal were debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could have resolved the issues in a different manner or that they deserved encouragement to proceed further.

Argued January 20, 2011

Officially released April 5, 2011

Procedural History

Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court, Swords, J.; judgment denying the petition; thereafter, the court denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.

Jeffrey M. Skelly, pro se, the appellant (petitioner).

Adam E. Mattei, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, and Gerard P. Eisenman, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).


Opinion


The petitioner, Jeffrey M. Skelly, appeals following the habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal from that court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court (1) abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) improperly concluded that he had not been subject to double jeopardy in his criminal trial.

Upon careful review of the record and briefs, and in fully considering the oral arguments of the parties, we conclude that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal. "Faced with a habeas court's denial of a petition for certification to appeal, a petitioner can obtain appellate review of the dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus only by satisfying the two-pronged test enunciated by our Supreme Court in Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178, 640 A.2d 601 (1994), and adopted in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 612, 646 A.2d 126 (1994). First, he must demonstrate that the denial of his petition for certification constituted an abuse of discretion. . . . Second, if the petitioner can show an abuse of discretion, he must then prove that the decision of the habeas court should be reversed on its merits. . . .

"To prove an abuse of discretion, the petitioner must demonstrate that the [resolution of the underlying claim involves issues that] are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Petty v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 185, 187, 7 A.3d 411 (2010), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 903, 12 A.3d 573 (2011). The petitioner has not shown that the issues raised on appeal are debatable among jurists of reason, that they could be resolved in a different manner or that they deserve encouragement to proceed further.

The appeal is dismissed.


Summaries of

Skelly v. Commissioner of Correction

Appellate Court of Connecticut
Apr 5, 2011
14 A.3d 1080 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)
Case details for

Skelly v. Commissioner of Correction

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY M. SKELLY v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION

Court:Appellate Court of Connecticut

Date published: Apr 5, 2011

Citations

14 A.3d 1080 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011)
14 A.3d 1080

Citing Cases

Skelly v. Conn. Dep't of Corr.

On appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court, the petitioner argued that the court had abused its discretion…

Wilson v. Comm'r of Corr.

The arguments set forth in the petitioner's brief have not shown that the issues raised on appeal are…