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. ******************************************************

RICHARD JANULAWICZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 31760)
Bishop, Lavine and Pellegrino, Js. Argued January 13--officially released March 29, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Rockville, Fuger, J.) Michael Proto, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin T. Kane, state's attorney, and Kelly A. Masi, assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (respondent). Martin Zeldis, chief of legal services, with whom, on the brief, was Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, for the appellee (petitioner).

Opinion

BISHOP, J. The respondent, the commissioner of correction, appeals following the habeas court's denial of his petition for certification to appeal from its judgment granting the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by the petitioner, Richard Janulawicz. The respondent claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal and that the court improperly granted the petition for a writ of habeas corpus on the basis that the petitioner's appellate counsel failed to seek certification for review by the Supreme Court.1 We agree and reverse the judgment of the habeas court. The following factual and procedural history is pertinent to this appeal. On January 20, 2004, following the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence, the petitioner entered conditional pleas of nolo contendere, pursuant to General Statutes

Download Janulawicz v. Commissioner of Correction.pdf

Connecticut Law