Daniel Perez v. Warden (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

THE COURT:  I am going to grant the motion to dismiss.

It is clear that there is case law that an escape while a case is pending—a criminal case—including on appeal, amounts to a forfeiture of those rights that could have been asserted on the appeal.

And there is the case of Tyler v. Bronson, 12 Conn.App. 621, a 1987 case, where the Court—I am quoting from page 624;  “Our case law has recognized that a criminal defendant's flight from custody brings with it special rules of forfeiture with respect to pending appellate procedures;” Citing State v. Leslie.

And on page 625 and 626, the Appellate Court stated further;  “We see no reason why the disentitlement rule adopted in State v. Leslie should not apply to the facts of this case, where the petitioner's conduct indicated a complete disregard for the orderly process of a criminal trial and timely appellate review.   We conclude that the petitioner's failure to appeal his conviction in a timely manner amounted to a forfeiture of his appellate rights, because his failure to appear at trial and sentencing was an act completely within his control, and that act clearly manifested hisabandonment of the legal process.”   And I would think that since that applies to a direct appeal, which may have statutory and constitutional rights to those procedures, it would apply all the more in a collateral proceeding such as habeas corpus and that the petitioner's conduct in absconding manifest an abandonment of the legal process.

Judge Samuel Sferrazza,

Superior Court Judge

Sferrazza, Samuel J., J.