Johnny Lee v. Warden (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

THE COURT:  The Court, having reviewed the decision of Judge Radcliffe from the case of Lee v. Commissioner of Correction, Judicial District of New Haven, Docket No. CV01–0450529, decided on December 20th of 2002, appeal denied at 82 Conn.App. 905—and that's a 2004 decision—and also, cert. denied to the Connecticut Supreme Court at 270 Conn. 906, the Court finds that all of the claims in the petitioner's current petition were previously raised and addressed by the Court in that decision.

And actually, the Court's finding in that decision was that some of the claims that are raised here and that were raised then had actually been raised and also addressed during the petitioner's direct appeal from his criminal conviction.

In this petition, the Court has reviewed the claims in this petition and the substance of the claims that were made in the prior petition and finds that the petitioner has failed to present any new facts or any new evidence that was not reasonably available to him at the time he brought the prior petition under docket number ending 529 before Judge Radcliffe.   And the petitioner seeks the same relief as he did back then, which is for a new trial on the matter.

Despite the petitioner's claims—the Court has reviewed the entirety of the current petition—there is no claim of actual innocence in here, nor is there anything which could reasonably be thought to be alleging actual innocence.

What he does claim is, quote, trial Court irregularity which led to a miscarriage of justice, which is the same, in substance, of his prior claim, which was judicial misconduct;  but all of that, however, relates to alleged improper rulings by the Court, ineffective assistance by counsel, or inappropriate investigation by counsel.

So when the substance of these claims are read—despite some of the titles, when the substance of the allegations in the current petition are read, they are, sum and substance, identical to the prior claims that Judge Radcliffe ruled upon and either found were prohibited by res judicata, that he denied outright, or that he ruled upon on their merits.

And so for those reasons, the Court finds that the claims in this petition are successive.   They are therefore barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and so the Court dismisses all claims in the petition under its power under Practice Book Section 23–29.

John M. Newson, Superior Court Judge

Newson, John M., J.