Background
Earl Thompson, self-represented, was convicted of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and kidnapping in the first degree as an accessory. He subsequently filed a petition for a new trial in the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford. The respondent, David Zagaja — the assistant state’s attorney who prosecuted the original criminal case and who is now a Superior Court judge — moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds.
Judge Carl J. Schuman, judge trial referee, granted the respondent’s motion for summary judgment. Thompson appealed to the Connecticut Appellate Court, arguing among other things that the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the respondent to file an untimely summary judgment motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal without reaching its merits. The court held that under General Statutes § 54-95(a), no appeal may be taken from a judgment denying a petition for a new trial unless the trial judge or an appellate judge first certifies within ten days that a question is involved that ought to be reviewed. Thompson never obtained that certification before filing his appeal.
Applying the Connecticut Supreme Court’s directive in Santiago v. State, 261 Conn. 533 (2002), the court reiterated that while the absence of certification does not strip an appellate court of subject matter jurisdiction, the certification requirement is nonetheless mandatory, and an appellate court should decline to entertain such an appeal when certification has not been sought. The court treated the summary judgment granted against Thompson as the functional equivalent of a judgment denying a petition for a new trial for purposes of § 54-95(a). The court noted, however, that Thompson retains the option of filing a late petition for certification, which the trial court may entertain in its sound discretion.
Key Takeaways
- Connecticut General Statutes § 54-95(a) imposes a mandatory certification requirement before a petitioner may appeal from the denial of a petition for a new trial in a criminal case.
- Under Santiago v. State, failure to obtain certification does not divest the Appellate Court of subject matter jurisdiction, but the court must nonetheless dismiss the appeal when certification was never sought.
- A trial court’s grant of summary judgment against a new trial petition qualifies as the functional equivalent of a denial of the petition for purposes of the § 54-95(a) certification requirement.
- A petitioner who missed the certification deadline is not without recourse — a late petition for certification may be filed, and the trial court’s decision whether to entertain it is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
This per curiam decision serves as a reminder that Connecticut’s post-conviction appellate pathway for new trial petitions carries a mandatory procedural gatekeeping step that is easy to overlook, particularly for self-represented litigants. Even where a trial court’s ruling may be substantively questionable, the failure to seek timely judicial certification will result in dismissal before the merits are ever considered.
Practitioners and their incarcerated clients should treat the ten-day certification window under § 54-95(a) as a hard deadline requiring immediate attention after any adverse ruling on a new trial petition. The court’s acknowledgment that a late certification petition remains available — subject to the trial court’s discretion — offers a narrow but meaningful safety valve for those who miss the window.