Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

************************************************
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 postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially 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 Connecti-
cut 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 Jour-
nal 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.
************************************************

Page 0 	CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 	0, 0
2 	, 0 	0 Conn. App. 1
Smith v. Commissioner of Correction
LAWRENCE SMITH v. COMMISSIONER
OF CORRECTION
(AC 47894)
Alvord, Moll and Clark, Js.
Argued October 14—officially released November 4, 2025
Procedural History
Amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district
of Tolland, where the court, Bhatt, J., dismissed the
petition; thereafter, the court, Bhatt, J., denied the peti-
tion for certification to appeal, and the petitioner
appealed to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Lawrence 	Smith, 	self-represented, 	the 	appellant
(petitioner).
Timothy F. Costello, supervisory assistant state’s
attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John P. Doyle,
Jr., state’s attorney, Christopher A. Alexy, senior assis-
tant state’s attorney, and Jessica Gouveia, former dep-
uty assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (respon-
dent).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The self-represented petitioner, Law-
rence Smith, appeals, following the denial of his petition
for certification to appeal, from the judgment of the
habeas court dismissing his amended petition for a writ
of habeas corpus. The petitioner’s criminal conviction
had been affirmed on direct appeal to the Supreme
Court; see State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598, 960 A.2d 993
(2008); and the judgment on his first petition for a writ
of habeas corpus became final in 2016. He filed the
petition underlying this appeal on October 19, 2018,
and the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction,
subsequently requested from the habeas court an order

Page 1	CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL	0, 0
0 Conn. App. 1 	, 0 	3
Smith v. Commissioner of Correction
pursuant to General Statutes § 52-470 (d) and (e)1 direct-
ing the petitioner to appear and show cause as to why
the petition should be permitted to proceed when it
was untimely. After a hearing, the habeas court dis-
missed the petition for failure to demonstrate good
cause to excuse the late filing of the petition. The peti-
tioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which
the court denied.
On appeal, the petitioner claims, inter alia, that his
trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. However,
the petitioner has failed to allege or demonstrate that
the habeas court abused its discretion in denying the
petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, we
dismiss his appeal. See Goguen v. Commissioner of
Correction, 341 Conn. 508, 523, 267 A.3d 831 (2021)
(‘‘although the burden of obtaining appellate review of
the threshold question under [Simms v. Warden, 229
Conn. 178, 640 A.2d 601 (1994)] and its progeny is mini-
mal, the petitioner must at least allege that the habeas
court abused its discretion in denying the petition for
certification to appeal’’ (emphasis in original)); see also
Goguen v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 524
(‘‘there is no exception to the requirement that a habeas
petitioner must expressly allege that the habeas court
abused its discretion in denying the petition for certifi-
cation to appeal when the petitioner is self-repre-
sented’’).
The appeal is dismissed.
1 General Statutes § 52-470 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(d) In the case of
a petition filed subsequent to a judgment on a prior petition challenging the
same conviction, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the filing of
the subsequent petition has been delayed without good cause if such petition
is filed after the later of the following: (1) Two years after the date on which
the judgment in the prior petition is deemed to be a final judgment due to
the conclusion of appellate review or the expiration of the time for seeking
such review . . . .
‘‘(e) In a case in which the rebuttable presumption of delay under subsec-
tion (c) or (d) of this section applies, the court, upon the request of the
respondent, shall issue an order to show cause why the petition should be
permitted to proceed. . . .’’