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. ****************************************************** AUGUSTUS PINTO v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 19327)
Schaller, Spear and O'Connell, Js. Argued September 19, 2000--officially released February 27, 2001 Counsel

Adele V. Patterson, assistant public defender, for the appellant (petitioner). Richard T. Biggar, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, was Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, for the appellee (respondent).
Opinion

SCHALLER, J. The petitioner, Augustus Pinto, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which he sought, pursuant to Connecticut's Interstate Agreement on Detainers (IAD),1 to quash a detainer lodged against him by the state of New Jersey On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly interpreted the IAD to preclude relief even though he had substantially complied with its terms.2 We affirm the judgment of the habeas court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. The petitioner is an inmate at the Enfield correctional institution. He has been incarcerated since 1963, when he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for murder in the second degree. The petitioner was released on furlough on December 26, 1988, from which he did not return until his apprehension on January 10, 1989. The petitioner first received notice of a New Jersey detainer on or about August 29, 1990, when he accepted delivery of the warrant. The New Jersey indictment charged the petitioner with conspiracy to commit robbery and murder in Atlantic County, New Jersey, on or about December 30, 1988 through January 3, 1989. He refused to sign the accompanying IAD form 1, although he did accept delivery of the warrant.3 The petitioner also did not sign a form 2 that was included with the warrant and the form 1. On August 17, 1992, the petitioner sent a written request to the records office of the department of correction (department) ``concerning [his] case in New Jersey,'' asking for ``the court papers for a speedy trial.'' His counselor provided him with forms 1 and 2, but the petitioner neither completed nor returned the forms to the records office. In a second written request, dated December 28, 1992, the petitioner sought ``court papers for New Jersey'' because he wanted to ``have them for Jan. 2, 1993.'' The petitioner again refused to sign the form 1 that was sent with the papers on December 30, 1992. Sometime before January 20, 1993, Michelle Humphrey, technical adviser to the records office, spoke with the New Jersey prosecutor regarding the petitioner's intent to request a speedy disposition of the New Jersey charges. The prosecutor responded, in a letter dated January 20, 1993, that ``[i]t is my understanding that you believe Augustus Pinto will soon request, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, to have the criminal charges in New Jersey heard within 180 days. I would ask that once defendant Pinto invokes this right, you notify me at once.'' Humphrey informed the New Jersey prosecutor on or about January 29, 1993, that the petitioner was undergoing medical testing and would sign the speedy trial papers when he felt better. On or about February 1, 1993, the petitioner mailed directly to New Jersey an undated request for final disposition of the charges there. In a letter to the petitioner, dated February 1, 1993, the New Jersey prosecutor responded that his ``[r]equest for Final Disposition [was] legally defective and the State of New Jersey [would] not act upon it.'' The prosecutor directed the petitioner to discuss his speedy disposition request with his counselor. In July, 1993, the prosecutor contacted

Humphrey and inquired whether the petitioner intended to file speedy disposition papers. Humphrey replied that the petitioner still was not feeling well and would sign the papers when he was feeling better. One year later, in August, 1994, the petitioner filed a motion for appointment of cocounsel status and a request for discovery in Atlantic County Superior Court. In response to those filings, the New Jersey prosecutor sent a letter to the petitioner, explaining that he was still considered an ``inactive fugitive'' and, until he completed the appropriate IAD paperwork, his status would not change. On April 22, 1995, the petitioner sent a written request to the records office of the department, asking ``that you submit the papers that are needed for me to apply for a speedy trial, under the Interstate [Agreement] on Detainers.'' In response to the petitioner's request, the department presented the petitioner with a form 1 dated April 24, 1995, and a form 2, dated April 24, 1995, and signed by warden John Tarascio. The petitioner refused to sign the forms. In addition to forms 1 and 2, the department completed a form 3, signed by Tarascio, and an unsigned form 4. The IAD office did not receive any of those forms. The petitioner did complete and sign a Connecticut Speedy Trial Notification and Request for Disposition form, dated April 24, 1995. The form lists the New Jersey charges and is initialed by Tarascio. The form was not, however, processed by the records office. In May, 1995, the petitioner sent a packet of information directly to the New Jersey prosecutor. The prosecutor received the packet, dated May 10, 1995, on May 8, 1995. The packet included a letter to the prosecutor, a form 1 dated May 10, 1995, with warden Peter Matos' name appearing typed on the form, a form 2, dated May 10, 1995, signed by the petitioner, an unofficial form 1 signed by the petitioner and dated 1994, an unofficial form 3 signed by the petitioner and dated May 10, 1995, and an unofficial form 4, signed by the petitioner and dated May 5, 1995. The ``official'' forms 1 and 2 that were sent to the New Jersey prosecutor contained altered dates; they were forms originally given to the petitioner in 1992 when Matos was still the warden. In early January, 1996, the records office received two additional sets of forms 1 and 2. Because the forms were not filed according to proper processing procedures, they were placed into the miscellaneous section of the petitioner's department file. The first form 1 is dated February 2, 1996, and January 5, 1996. Matos' name appears typed on the document, although he was not the warden in 1996, and it is signed by the petitioner. Form 2 is dated January 5, 1996, and it is also signed by the petitioner. Both forms, though signed and dated in January, 1996, were photocopies of the 1992 forms previously presented to the petitioner for his signature but never returned to the records office for processing.

The second form 1 is dated January 7, 1996, and contains the typed name of Matos, who was not the warden in 1996, and is not signed by the petitioner. The second form 2 is dated January 7, 1996, and is signed by the petitioner. The records office determined that, because Matos was no longer the warden in 1996, the documents were invalid. A set of forms, all of which were dated January 7, 1996, and signed by the petitioner, was also placed in the miscellaneous section of the petitioner's master file. The forms were of inmate design rather than standard IAD forms. They included a form 1, a form 3, a form 4, and a letter titled ``Request for Final Disposition.'' The records office considered those forms improper and declined to process them. On January 22, 1996, and January 29, 1996, the petitioner submitted written requests asking the department records office to ``make out all the court papers I need, so I can take care of this [New Jersey] matter as soon as possible.'' In response to that request, department personnel prepared and provided forms 1 through 4 to the petitioner. Form 1 is dated January 30, 1996, and signed by warden Michelle Deveau, but is not signed by the petitioner. Form 2 is dated January 30, 1996, and is signed by the petitioner. Form 3 is completed and signed by Deveau, although it is not dated. Form 4 is completed but not signed by the warden. The forms were submitted to the records office for processing and were placed in section four of the inmate's master file. The records office did not forward the forms to New Jersey because the petitioner failed to sign form 1. The records office did not forward the forms to the department's IAD office. On July 24, 1996, the New Jersey attorney general's office received directly from the petitioner a motion to dismiss the New Jersey charges for failure to prosecute, and a Connecticut Speedy Trial Notification and Request for Disposition form, completed and dated 1995. On October 21, 1996, the Interstate Compact Office received form 5, New Jersey's request for temporary custody of the petitioner. On April 24, 1997, the commissioner of correction, John J. Armstrong, applied for a writ of habeas corpus for the petitioner in an effort to comply with New Jersey's request for temporary custody filed October 9, 1996. The petitioner was brought before the court on May 6, 1997, for a pretransfer hearing at which time he was notified of his rights in regard to the detainer. The petitioner chose not to waive his rights and objected to the involuntary transfer to New Jersey for disposition of the conspiracy charges. The court stayed the transfer and granted the petitioner until August 8, 1997, to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner filed his petition on August 4, 1997. The habeas court held hearings on January 30,

1998, and March 20, 1998. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to substantiate his petition under theories of actual or substantial compliance with the IAD. The petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly interpreted the IAD to deny the petitioner relief even though he had substantially complied with the statute. We disagree. ``Our standard of review of the petitioner's claim is plenary. We must decide whether the court's conclusion is legally and logically correct and find[s] support in the facts that appear in the record.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 60 Conn. App. 1, 8, 758 A.2d 442, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 902, 762 A.2d 908 (2000). ``[T]he IAD is an interstate compact that the federal Congress has sanctioned, [therefore,] we must interpret its provisions in accordance with federal law.'' State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 85, 554 A.2d 686, cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S. Ct. 3230, 106 L. Ed. 2d 579 (1989). ``Because the IAD . . . has been deemed to constitute federal law[,] . . . interpretations of its provisions by the federal courts have special significance.'' (Citations omitted.) Craig v. Bronson, 202 Conn. 93, 103

Download Pinto v. Commissioner of Correction.pdf

Connecticut Law