Opinion
CV195059083S
11-01-2019
Steven K. STANLEY v. Adam B. SCOTT et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
CESAR A. NOBLE, J.
Before the court is the motion of the defendants, Adam B. Scott (Scott) and Susan C. Marks (Marks), current and former assistant state’s attorneys, to strike the plaintiff’s complaint on the grounds of misjoinder. In the view of the defendants the proper respondent is the State of Connecticut, an original party in the criminal action from which the plaintiff seeks a new trial. Because Scott and Marks have been misjoined, the motion to strike is granted.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this decision. The plaintiff was previously convicted of one hundred counts of violation of a protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223, one count of stalking in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-181c and one count of threatening in the second degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62. The plaintiff’s complaint seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The approximately 50 pages complaint contains references to an appeal and two or more habeas corpus proceedings. The defendants have moved to strike the present petition on the basis that, neither having been a party to the underlying criminal action, they have been misjoined.
A petition for a new trial is not an action independent from the original criminal case. Gannon v. the State, 75 Conn. 576, 577, 54 A. 199 (1903). The petition, although a separate proceeding, is collateral to the original criminal prosecution, State v. Asherman, 180 Conn. 141, 144, 429 A.2d 810 (1980). It follows that only the same parties may properly be joined in a petition for new trial and "[a] petition for a new trial ... must be brought against the state." Barrett v. Commissioner of Correction, 106 Conn.App. 710, 714 n.3, 943 A.2d 1107 (2008). Accordingly, our courts have held that a prosecutor is not a proper party in a petition for new trial. Walker v. State, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. 505882, 1992 WL 66660 (March 23, 1992, Hammer, J.).
"Naming an improper person as a party in a legal action constitutes misjoinder ... The exclusive remedy for misjoinder of parties is by motion to strike." (Citation omitted.) Bloom v. Miklovich, 111 Conn.App. 323, 329, 958 A.2d 1283 (2008). See also Costello v. Goldstein & Peck, P.C., 187 Conn.App. 486, 497, 203 A.3d 611 (2019) (Motion to strike exclusive remedy for misjoinder of parties). See also Practice Book 11-3 ("The exclusive remedy for misjoinder of parties is by motion to strike").
Because Scott and Marks are not the proper parties in this petition for a new trial and have been, accordingly, misjoined, the motion to strike is granted.