Abdul Mukhtaar v. John Smriga, State's Attorney (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (# 103)

This is a petition for new trial (hereinafter petition) brought pursuant to General Statutes § 52–270.   The petitioner, Abdul Mukhtaar, is presently serving a fifty-year prison sentence for murder.   He was sentenced by the trial court (Gormley, J.) on September 19, 1997.   In accordance with Connecticut law, judgment entered on that date.  State v. Coleman, 202 Conn. 86, 89 (1987).

The gist of the petition is that, after the trial, the petitioner discovered the existence of two witnesses, Michael Johnson and William Birch, who (according to the petitioner) exonerate him from any involvement in the shooting of the victim.   The marshal's return indicates that the present petition was served on August 28, 2013.   The petition was therefore “brought” on that date.

In the present motion, the respondent moves for summary judgment asserting that the petition was brought well beyond the three-year statute of limitation prescribed by General Statutes § 52–582.   The self-represented petitioner objects to the motion asserting that he did not learn of the information regarding the witnesses until November 2003—six years after he was sentenced,

A hearing on the present motion was held on November 12, 2013.   At the hearing, the petitioner stated that his claim regarding the witnesses was made in a habeas corpus petition adjudicated in the judicial district of Tolland.   See Mukhtaar v. Warden, State Prison, docket number CV08–4002166S.   In that matter, the trial court (Santos, J.) denied the petition.   That case is on appeal.

For the reasons set forth below, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

DISCUSSION

A motion for summary judgment should be granted when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Practice Book § 17–49;  Wilson v. New Haven, 213 Conn. 277, 279 (1989).   In deciding a motion for summary judgment, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.  Brooks v. Sweeney, 299 Conn. 196, 210 (2010).

As relevant here, § 52–582 provides:  “No petition for new trial in any ․ criminal proceeding shall be brought but within three years next after the rendition of judgment ․ complained of ․” As noted above, Judge Gormley imposed judgment on September 19, 1997.   Pursuant to § 52–582, the statute of limitations for the bringing of a petition for new trial on such judgment would have expired on September 19, 2000.   The petitioner, however, asserts that the three-year period should be tolled because the respondent and the Bridgeport Police Department told the two witnesses to omit from their statements the fact that they identified someone other than the defendant as the shooter.   The petitioner further asserts that he discovered the information regarding the witnesses in November 2003 through the efforts of a private investigator.

The problem with the petitioner's position is that, even assuming he could prove the fraudulent concealment he asserts, the tolling of the statute of limitations would only be until November 2003 when he acquired actual knowledge of the statements.   Stated differently, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner, the present action was still brought far beyond the three-year statute of limitations whether measured from the date of the judgment (September 1997) or the date when he acquired actual knowledge of the existence of the two witnesses (November 2003).

Our Supreme Court has stated that:

The three-year statute of limitations on a petition for new trial based on newly discovered evidence is the product of the legislature's balancing of the interests of the petitioner against the interests of the public and the state ․ Thus, for a petition for new trial, within the three-year limitations period, the petitioner's interests trump those of the public and the state.   Beyond that period, however, the interests of the public and the state trump those of the petitioner.

Summerville v. Warden, 229 Conn. 397, 426–27 (1994).

For the reasons set forth above, the motion for summary judgment is granted.

So Ordered at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 12th day of November 2013.

ROBERT J. DEVLIN, JR., JUDGE

Devlin, Robert J., J.