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 25, 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 the 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. In this proceeding, we are asked to consider a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error Dan Ross, as father and next friend of Michael Ross, and a writ of error brought by the plaintiff in error office of the chief public defender of the state of Connecticut, as next friend of Michael B. Ross,1 challenging the orders of the habeas court, entered on January 3,

2005, dismissing their respective petitions for writs of habeas corpus on the ground that: (1) the habeas petitions submitted by the plaintiffs in error on behalf of Michael Ross were not legitimate filings; and (2) the plaintiffs in error did not have standing to file the petitions.2 We affirm the orders of the habeas court dismissing the habeas petitions of the plaintiffs in error and dismiss the writs of error. The background of this case is described in State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213, 849 A.2d 648 (2004), and State v. Ross, 272 Conn. 577, A.2d (2005). The record reveals the following additional relevant facts pertaining to events since those opinions were released. On December 27, 2004, each of the plaintiffs in error submitted to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Tolland a petition for a writ of habeas corpus as next friend of Michael Ross. The petitions requested, inter alia, a stay of execution of Michael Ross' death sentence and a hearing on Michael Ross' competence to waive further postconviction proceedings. The clerk's office received and date-stamped the petitions, but informed the plaintiffs in error that the petitions would be ``held,'' rather than filed, and that it would not accept filing fees or docket the petitions. Thereafter, the habeas court scheduled a hearing for January 3, 2005,3 and notified the plaintiffs in error that no continuances would be granted. The chief public defender nonetheless filed a motion for a continuance that the habeas court denied. Thereafter, a hearing was conducted on January 3, 2005, to determine whether the court had jurisdiction to issue the writs sought by the plaintiffs in error. The habeas court specifically required that the plaintiffs in error demonstrate their standing to file petitions on behalf of Michael Ross by presenting evidence of Michael Ross' incompetence. Following the presentation of evidence, the habeas court concluded that the plaintiffs in error had failed to raise any doubt about Michael Ross' competence and, therefore, declined to issue the writs and dismissed the petitions because the plaintiffs in error did not have legal standing to pursue habeas corpus petitions on behalf of Michael Ross. On January 13, 2005, the plaintiffs in error filed motions for reconsideration and petitions for certification to appeal. The habeas court denied those motions and petitions. On January 18, 2005, the plaintiffs in error filed the present writs of error challenging the dismissal of their habeas petitions. While these proceedings were pending, several other courts rendered decisions regarding Michael Ross' competency. On January 10, 2005, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut issued an order on a motion filed by Dan Ross seeking appointment as next friend of Michael Ross for the purpose of challenging the constitutionality of the state's protocol for lethal injection.4 See Ross v. Rell, Docket No. Civ.A.3:04 CV 2186 C, 2005 WL 61494, *4 (D. Conn. January 10, 2005).

Following a hearing in which Michael Ross and his attorney participated, the District Court concluded that Dan Ross had ``provided no affirmative evidence of [Michael Ross'] incompetence, incapacity or other disability,'' and that Michael Ross was competent to proceed on his own behalf. Id., *2. Consequently, the court lacked ``a sufficient basis to appoint a next friend to litigate in [Michael Ross'] name.'' Id. In reaching its conclusions, the District Court evaluated the evidence adduced at the hearing in light of well established federal case law pertaining to standards for evaluating competency; see id., citing Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348, 354, 116 S. Ct. 1373, 134 L. Ed. 2d 498 (1996); and the ``heightened'' standard that applies when defendants seek to waive their constitutional rights, which requires a determination of whether the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily. See Ross v. Rell, supra, 2005 WL 61494, *2, citing Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 110 S. Ct. 1717, 109 L. Ed. 2d 135 (1990). The District Court ultimately concluded, on the basis of: (1) psychiatric evaluations of Michael Ross in 1995 and 2004; (2) an affidavit filed by Michael Ross in Superior Court in October, 2004; (3) the transcripts of recent Superior Court proceedings to determine Michael Ross' competency in October, 2004, December, 2004, and January, 2005; and (4) Michael Ross' participation in the District Court hearing on January 7, 2005, that Michael Ross exceeded the competency threshold required by prevailing federal and state standards. Ross v. Rell, supra, *3. Subsequent to the decision of the District Court, this court issued an opinion on January 14, 2005, dismissing a previous writ of error brought by the chief public defender challenging the trial court's denial of its motion to appear as next friend of Michael Ross, a party in interest, an intervenor, or amicus curiae in postconviction proceedings in the three criminal cases against Michael Ross on the ground that Michael Ross was incompetent.5 See State v. Ross, supra, 272 Conn. 579, 613. We concluded that the chief public defender did not have standing to represent Michael Ross as next friend because it had provided no ``meaningful evidence'' of Michael Ross' incompetence that would have entitled it to an evidentiary hearing on the matter. Id., 611. We also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the chief public defender's motion to appear as amicus curiae.6 Id., 611, 613. These conclusions were based on an analysis of the evidence similar to that undertaken by the District Court in Ross v. Rell, supra, 2005 WL 61494. We first reviewed evidence regarding Michael Ross' competency presented at recent trial court proceedings in October, 2004, and December, 2004. See State v. Ross, supra, 272 Conn. 609

Download In re Application for Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Dan Ross as Next

Connecticut Law