Hector Gonzalez v. Warden (2011)

Memorandum of Decision

The petitioner in this habeas corpus case was convicted of capital felony and attempted murder in 1985—some twenty-six years ago.   The Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 1988.  State v. Gonzalez, 206 Conn. 213, 537 A.2d 460 (1988).   In 1992, the petitioner filed his first habeas petition.   The court, Zarella, J., denied the petition, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, and the Supreme Court denied certification.  Gonzalez v. Warden, 58 Conn.App. 371, 752 A.2d 85, cert. denied, 254 Conn. 921, 759 A.2d 1024 (2000).   In 2000, the petitioner filed a second petition.   The court, DeMayo, J.T.R., granted the respondent's motion to dismiss.   There is no reported appeal.

The petitioner has now filed a third habeas corpus petition.   The court held a hearing at which the petitioner appeared pro se.   Although he had detailed some four claims in his pro se petition, the petitioner expressed an interest in pursuing only the claim that his criminal trial was unfair because one of the jurors did not speak English.¹

The respondent alleges in its return that the petitioner raised this same claim in his 2000 petition.   At the hearing on the present petition, the petitioner acknowledged having done so.   A review of the pleadings from the 2000 case (which are now court exhibits) confirms that the petitioner did, in fact, raise this claim in count two of an amended petition filed by counsel on petitioner's behalf in 2003.   The respondent then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition presented the same grounds as the 1992 petition.   The petitioner submitted a supplemental response arguing that the issue of a non-English speaking juror was not raised in the 1992 petition.   On June 14, 2005,

Carl J. Schuman

Judge, Superior Court

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The petitioner also mentioned that he did not have an interpreter at trial.   This claim was not alleged, however, and so the court does not consider it further..  FN1. The petitioner also mentioned that he did not have an interpreter at trial.   This claim was not alleged, however, and so the court does not consider it further.

Schuman, Carl J., J.