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

NABIL KADDAH v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (SC 18565)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued September 10--officially released November 30, 2010

Deren Manasevit, special public defender, for the appellant (petitioner). Susann E. Gill, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Jonathan C. Benedict, former state's attorney, for the appellee (respondent).

Opinion

VERTEFEUILLE, J. The petitioner, Nabil Kaddah, appeals1 from the denial of his petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the habeas court, which summarily dismissed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus as successive to a prior habeas petition that the petitioner had filed.2 The petitioner claims that the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification to appeal because it is debatable among jurists of reason whether: (1) the present petition presented the same grounds and request for relief as a prior petition; and (2) the state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process afford the petitioner a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before a court summarily dismisses a habeas petition under Practice Book

Download 299CR9.pdf

Connecticut Law