Free Response to Habeas Petition - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT DAVID JOYCE, Petitioner V. THERESA LANTZ, ET AL., Respondents : : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:03CV655(PCD)(JGM)

SEPTEMBER 9, 2004

ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States District Courts, the respondent now answers the claims raised in the petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus dated October 20, 2003 [Doc. # 22]. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 2 of 8

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted.

FIRST COUNT (Claim That Conviction Obtained In Violation Of Constitutional Right Of Confrontation And In Violation Of Fundamental Right To Present Defense): 18. 19. 20. Admitted. Admitted. At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny Therefore, the

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of Count One. respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 21.

At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny Therefore, the

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 21 of Count One. respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 22.

At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny Therefore, the

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 22 of Count One. respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 23. Admitted.

2

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 3 of 8

24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. The respondent denies that the petitioner's confinement is unlawful. In

denying this claim, the respondent relies on the transcripts of the criminal proceedings, the transcripts of the state habeas proceedings, and the decisions of Connecticut's courts. See Appendices A, D, G, H, I, K, and N to this Answer. 29. The respondent denies that the petitioner's confinement is unlawful. In

denying this claim, the respondent relies on the transcripts of the criminal proceedings, the transcripts of the state habeas proceedings, and the decisions of Connecticut's courts. See Appendices A, D, G, H, I, K, and N to this Answer. SECOND COUNT (Claim That Conviction Obtained In Violation Of Constitutional Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel): 30. At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 30 of Count Two. Therefore, the respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 31. At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Count Two. Therefore, the respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof.

3

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 4 of 8

32.

At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Count Two. Therefore, the respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 33. At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Count Two. Therefore, the respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 34. At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 34 of Count Two. Therefore, the respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 35. 36. Admitted. At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of Count Two. Therefore, the respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 37. 38. Admitted. At this time, the respondent is without sufficient information to admit or deny

the factual allegations contained in Paragraph 38 of Count Two. Therefore, the respondent leaves the petitioner to his proof. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Denied. Denied. Denied. Admitted. Admitted. 4

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 5 of 8

44. 45.

Admitted. Admitted.

EXHAUSTION / PROCEDURAL DEFAULT 46. The petitioner appears to have exhausted both of his claims by presenting

them to the Connecticut Appellate Court on appeal and to the Connecticut Supreme Court in a petition for certification to appeal the decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court. To the extent that the petitioner's claims in this federal habeas corpus proceeding differ in any way from the claims as they were pursued in the state courts, the petitioner's failure to present his claims fairly to state courts renders federal habeas corpus relief unwarranted due to the petitioner's procedural default and/or lack of exhaustion. OTHER PENDING PETITIONS 47. The respondent is not aware of any other pending challenges to the judgment

of conviction under attack in the instant federal habeas corpus proceeding. APPENDICES TO THIS ANSWER 48. Copies of the following documents were forwarded to the court as

appendices to the respondent's motion to dismiss [Doc. #16] dated October 1, 2003, and are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendices A through N to this Answer. Appendix A Connecticut Appellate Court's decision, State v. Joyce, 45 Conn. App. 390, 696 A.2d 993 (1997) Record in petitioner's direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court Petitioner's brief on direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court

Appendix B

Appendix C

5

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 6 of 8

Appendix D

State's brief on direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court Petitioner's reply brief on direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court Petitioner's petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court Connecticut Supreme Court's decision determining that certification was improvidently granted; State v. Joyce, 248 Conn. 699, 728 A.2d 1096 (1999) Decision of the Connecticut Appellate Court in the state habeas corpus matter of Joyce v. Commissioner of Correction, 68 Conn. App. 903, 792 A.2d 912 (2002) Record on habeas appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court Petitioner's brief on habeas appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court Respondent's brief on habeas appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court Petitioner's reply brief on habeas appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court Petition for certification to the Connecticut Supreme Court Decision of the Supreme Court of Connecticut; Joyce v. Commissioner of Correction, 260 Conn. 918, 797 A.2d 514 (2002)

Appendix E

Appendix F

Appendix G

Appendix H

Appendix I

Appendix J

Appendix K

Appendix L

Appendix M Appendix N

TRANSCRIPTS 49. The proceedings of the petitioner's 1993 criminal trial have been transcribed

and in the respondent's possession. They will be filed with this Court should the Court request to review them. The proceedings of the petitioner's 2000 state habeas trial have

6

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 7 of 8

been transcribed and in the respondent's possession. They will be filed with this Court should the Court request to review them. CONCLUSION 50. The petitioner cannot demonstrate that he is in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Therefore, his petition for writ of habeas corpus must be dismissed.

7

Case 3:03-cv-00655-PCD

Document 32

Filed 09/13/2004

Page 8 of 8

Respectfully submitted, RESPONDENT--THERESA LANTZ, ET AL.

By: JO ANNE SULIK Assistant State's Attorney Civil Litigation Bureau Office of the Chief State's Attorney 300 Corporate Place Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 (860) 258-5887 (860) 258-5968 (fax) Fed. Bar. No. ct 15122

MICHELLE NEARY Law Student Intern Civil Litigation Bureau Office of the Chief State's Attorney 300 Corporate Place Rocky Hill, Connecticut 06067 (860) 258-5887 (860) 258-5968 (fax)

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of this answer was mailed to Attorney Richard L. Grant, 36 Tamarack Avenue, PMB # 213, Danbury, Connecticut 06811, (203) 778-8075, on September 9, 2004.

JO ANNE SULIK Assistant State's Attorney