Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

IN RE APPLICATION FOR PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY DAN ROSS AS NEXT FRIEND ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL B. ROSS (SC 17342) IN RE APPLICATION FOR PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF PUBLIC DEFENDER AS NEXT FRIEND ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL B. ROSS (SC 17343)
Sullivan, C. J., and Norcott, Vertefeuille, Zarella, Lavery, Foti and Dranginis, Js. Argued January 21--officially released January 27, 2005*

Jon L. Schoenhorn, for the plaintiff in error (petitioner Dan Ross). Temmy Ann Pieszak, chief of habeas corpus services, with whom was Adele V. Patterson, assistant public defender, for the plaintiff in error (petitioner office of the chief public defender). Harry Weller, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom were Kevin T. Kane, state's attorney, and Michael O'Hare, supervisory assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Robert J. Scheinblum, assistant state's attorney, and Jessica Probolus, special deputy assistant state's attorney, for defendant in error (respondent commissioner of correction). Edward J. Gavin filed a brief for the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
Opinion

ZARELLA, J. This opinion relates to the orders of this court dated January 25, 2005, dismissing the motions to stay the execution of Michael B. Ross1 filed by the plaintiff in error, Dan Ross, and the plaintiff in error, the office of the chief public defender, respectively.2 See In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. , A.2d (2005) (In re

Application II). The motions were filed in connection with two separate writs of error brought by the plaintiffs in error challenging the orders of the habeas court dismissing their respective petitions for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Michael Ross. In re Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross, 272 Conn. , A.2d (2005) (In re Application I). We affirmed the orders of the habeas court and dismissed the writs of error on the ground that the plaintiffs in error lacked standing to bring the habeas petitions. Id., . Accordingly, we dismissed the motions to stay as moot. In re Application II, supra, . In our opinion dismissing the motions to stay as moot, we indicated that this opinion explaining in greater detail the reasons for the dismissal of the motions would follow. Id., . The underlying facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in our decisions in In re Application I and State v. Ross, 272 Conn. 577, A.2d (2005). In summary, these cases involve attempts by the plaintiffs in error to obtain next friend status in the underlying criminal proceeding against Michael Ross in order to pursue postconviction relief on his behalf, including participation in the ongoing consolidated habeas litigation on behalf of several defendants who have been sentenced to death. We have concluded that they have no standing to do so. See In re Application I, supra, 272 Conn. ; State v. Ross, supra, 611. The plaintiffs in error have argued in their briefs in these proceedings that Michael Ross cannot waive his right to pursue further postconviction remedies and, therefore, his execution must be stayed. We disagree. As we have noted, we have concluded, and the dissenting justices agree, that the plaintiffs in error have no standing to bring habeas proceedings on behalf of Michael Ross and, therefore, the habeas petitions properly were dismissed. See In re Application I, supra, . The motions for stay were filed in conjunction with the writs of error that have been dismissed. Accordingly, the motions to stay must be dismissed as moot. The dissenting justices conclude, however, that: (1) General Statutes (Rev. to 1987)

Download In re Application for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross.pdf

Connecticut Law