adopting factors identified by United Anwar S. v. Commissioner of Correction States Supreme Court in Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 , 431–32, 111 S. Ct. 860 , 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991), as appropriate standard for determining whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal
How later courts described this case
- adopting factors identified by United Anwar S. v. Commissioner of Correction States Supreme Court in Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 , 431–32, 111 S. Ct. 860 , 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991), as appropriate standard for determining whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal
- adopting factors iden- tified by United States Supreme Court in Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430 , 431–32, 111 S. Ct. 860 , 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991), as appropriate standard for determining whether habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal
- adopting factors identified by United States Supreme Court in Lozada v. Deeds, 498 U.S. 430, 431–32, 111 S. Ct. 860, 112 L. Ed. 2d 956 (1991
- denial of certification to appeal denial of writ of habeas corpus
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Callahan, J.,
concurring. In light of the precedent established by Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 , 640 A.2d 601 (1994) (Simms I), I concur in the result.
Because I was not a member of the panel that decided Simms I, however, I feel obligated to express my opinion that part III of that opinion wherein this court afforded a habeas petitioner a right of appeal from the trial court’s denial of certification, was incorrectly decided. I believe that the plain language and the legislative history of General Statutes § 52-470 (b) both clearly indicate that the legislature intended prohibition of any appeal of a judgment rendered in a habeas corpus proceeding after a denial of certification by the habeas court. See 7 S. Proc., Pt. 5, 1957 Sess., pp. 2936, 2939-40; 7 H.R. Proc., Pt. 5, 1957 Sess., pp. 2881-83. If an appeal from a denial of certification was to be permitted, it should have been accomplished by the amendment of the statute by the legislature and not by this court. See Starr v. Commissioner of Environmental Protection, 226 Conn. 358, 395 , 627 A.2d 1296 (1993); see generally Simms I, supra, 229 Conn. 189 (Borden, J., concurring).