PALMER, J.
CONCURRENCE
PALMER, J., concurring. I agree with the result that the majority reaches because I believe that our decision in Duperry v. Solnit, 261 Conn. 309, 803 A.2d 287 (2002), controls the outcome of this case, and the petitioner, Anthony Dyous, has not asked us to overrule that decision. In light of Judge Stefan R. Underhill's thoughtful analysis in Duperry v. Kirk, 563 F. Supp. 2d 370 (D. Conn. 2008), of the same fundamental issue presented in this case, however, I now question whether our application of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060, 103 L. Ed. 2d 334 (1989), in Duperry v. Solnit, supra, 319-26, was correct. Because the majority understandably relies on our reasoning in Duperry v. Solnit, supra, 309, to decide the present case, I concur in the result only.