Hobby v. Commissioner of Correction

── Hobby v. Commissioner of Correction ── Court: Connecticut Appellate Court Date: April 21, 2026 Author: Suarez Category: General ************************************************ The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ************************************************  Hobby v. Commissioner of Correction WILLIE HOBBY v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 48638) Suarez, Westbrook and Eveleigh, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who had been convicted of various crimes, including sexual assault in the first degree, appealed, on the granting of certification, from the habeas court’s judgment dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to statute (§ 52-470). The petitioner claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly concluded that he failed to establish good cause under § 52-470 (e) to overcome the presumption of unreasonable delay in the filing of his third habeas petition. Held: The habeas court properly dismissed the petitioner’s habeas petition, as the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the petitioner had failed to establish good cause for his untimely filing, the court having declined to credit the petitioner’s unsupported testimony that his counsel in two prior habeas actions the petitioner had withdrawn failed to advise him about the deadlines for refiling set forth in § 52-470 (d). Argued March 19—officially released April 21, 2026 Procedural History Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland, where the court, Wagner, J., rendered judgment dismissing the petition, from which the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Affirmed. Robert L. O’Brien, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Christopher Y. Duby, assigned counsel, for the appellant (petitioner). Timothy F. Costello, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John P. Doyle, Jr., state’s attorney, and Jennifer Fields, deputy assis- tant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respondent). Opinion PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Willie Hobby, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as untimely pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470. On appeal, the petitioner  Hobby v. Commissioner of Correction claims that the court improperly concluded that he failed to establish good cause within the meaning of § 52-470 (e) to overcome the presumption of unreasonable delay in the filing of his third habeas petition. We affirm the judgment of the habeas court. The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the petitioner’s app