Stanley v. State

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion
motions and petitions for certification is the “officially
released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut
Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is
to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an
opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and
subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut
Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the
State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced
or distributed without the express written permission of
the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial
Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Stanley v. State

STEVEN K. STANLEY v. STATE
OF CONNECTICUT ET AL.
(AC 48871)
Alvord, Elgo and Seeley, Js.

Syllabus

The petitioner, who had previously been convicted of, inter alia, criminal
violation of a protective order, appealed from the trial court’s judgment
granting the respondents’ motions to dismiss and to strike his petition for
a new trial. Held:

This court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal from the trial court’s judgment
granting the respondents’ motions to dismiss and to strike, as the petitioner
never sought certification to appeal as required by the statute (§ 54-95 (a))
governing an appeal taken from a judgment denying a petition for a new trial.

Argued June 3—officially released June 30, 2026

Procedural History

Petition for a new trial following the petitioner’s con-
viction of, inter alia, the crime of criminal violation of
a protective order, brought to the Superior Court in the
judicial district of New Britain and transferred to the
judicial district of Hartford, where the court, Shaikh,
J., granted the named respondent’s motion to dismiss
and the motion to strike and to dismiss filed by the defen-
dant William Tong and rendered judgment thereon,
from which the petitioner appealed to this court. Appeal
dismissed.
Steven K. Stanley, self-represented, the appellant
(petitioner).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The self-represented petitioner, Ste-
ven K. Stanley, appeals from the judgment of the trial
court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the respon-
dent State of Connecticut and the motion to strike and
to dismiss filed by the respondent William Tong, as to
the petitioner’s petition for a new trial.1 Because the
1
Although the petitioner originally captioned his complaint as a “civil
tort claims act,” he pursued claims under General Statutes § 52-270,
Stanley v. State

petitioner failed to obtain certification to appeal from
the trial court, the appeal is dismissed.2
General Statutes § 54-95 (a) provides in relevant part
that “[n]o appeal may be taken from a judgment deny-
ing a petition for a new trial unless, within ten days
after the judgment is rendered, the judge who heard
the case or a judge of the Supreme Court or the Appel-
late Court, as the case may be, certifies that a question
is involved in the decision which ought to be reviewed
by the Supreme Court or by the Appellate Court. . . .” In
Santiago v. State, 261 Conn. 533, 804 A.2d 801 (2002),
our Supreme Court held that, although the failure to
seek certification does not deprive an appellate court of
subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal, the certifica-
tion requirement is nonetheless “mandatory”; id., 540;
such that an appellate court “should decline to entertain
an appeal challenging the denial of a petition for a new
trial until the petitioner first has sought certification to
appeal pursuant to § 54-95 (a).” Id., 534.
In the present case, the petitioner did not obtain cer-
tification to appeal pursuant to § 54-95 (a) prior to fil-
ing this appeal.3 As a result, in accordance with our
Supreme Court’s directive in Santiago, we dismiss this
appeal. We note, however, that the petitioner may file
a late petition for certification and that “the decision of
whether to entertain an untimely request for certification
and confirmed with the trial court following a status conference that
his action was brought as a petition for a new trial.
2
The respondents did not file a brief in this court. On February 2, 2026,
this court ordered that this appeal shall be considered on the basis of
the petitioner’s brief and appendix, the record, as defined by Practice
Book § 60-4, and oral argument by the petitioner.
On May 26, 2026, this court notified the petitioner to be prepared
to address at oral argument “whether this appeal should be dismissed
because the petitioner failed to seek certification to appeal pursuant
to General Statutes § 54-95 (a). See Santiago v. State, 261 Conn. 533,
544–45 [804 A.2d 801] (2002); Ramos v. State, 236 Conn. App. 560,
564–67 [348 A.3d 488] (2025).”
3
In this context, we consider the trial court’s judgment granting the
respondents’ motions to dismiss and to strike and to dismiss to be the
functional equivalent of a judgment denying a petition for a new trial
for purposes of § 54-95 (a).
Stanley v. State

to appeal under § 54-95 (a) [would be] within the sound
discretion of the [trial] court.” Id., 544–45 n.17; see also
id., 545 n.17 (on appeal, appellate court employs abuse
of discretion standard in reviewing trial court’s denial
of petition for certification to appeal under § 54-95 (a)
on timeliness ground).
The appeal is dismissed.