Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven at New HavenMay 19, 2003
2003 Ct. Sup. 6529 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003)

No. CV 02-0470587

May 19, 2003



In his habeas corpus petition, the petitioner seeks a new parole hearing, his parole having been revoked on September 6, 2001. The underlying sentence was completed by the petitioner and discharged on June 6, 2002. This petition was filed on October 28, 2002. He is presently serving a new sentence which commenced on August 2, 2002 and on which he will not be eligible for parole until May 18, 2025.

The respondent has moved to dismiss the petition on two grounds, arguing that the issue is moot and attacking the petition on jurisdictional grounds.


The pro se petitioner argues that the issue is not moot because he seeks to erase the parole revocation from his institutional record so he will not be prejudiced when and if he is parole eligible on his present sentence.

He relies on State v. Johnson, 11 Conn. App. 251 (1987) where, at page 254, the court says:

The question of mootness is determined by examining whether there are collateral consequences which attach to the trial court's revocation of parole, or whether the law imposes any further penalty for the revocation.

There is some merit to the petitioner's claim that he will suffer the consequence of this revocation, though the court questions its applicability to his present sentence as opposed to the one on which the revocation was applied.

The weakness to the petitioner's position is that the original sentence has been discharged and he is not being held on it. Rather, his detention is on his present sentence. He makes no claims as to that detention in this action.

Questions which do not concern the lawfulness of the detention cannot be reviewed on habeas corpus.

Vincenzo v. Warden, 26 Conn App. 132, 138 (1991).

Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction in this matter and it is therefore ordered dismissed.

Anthony V. DeMayo Judge Trial Referee