*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing 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 Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest 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 the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. COURTNEY GREEN (AC 42975) Bright, C. J., and Prescott and DiPentima, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who had been convicted in 2009 on a plea of guilty to three counts of the crime of assault in the first degree, appealed from the trial court’s dismissal of his 2018 motion to withdraw his plea, in which he claimed that the plea was obtained in violation of his due process rights because the trial court failed to inquire as to whether the plea was the result of force, threats or promises apart from a plea agreement, as required by the applicable rule of practice (§ 39-20). The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendant conceded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to con- sider his motion but requested that this court exercise its supervisory authority pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 60-2) to treat the appeal as an authorized late appeal from his 2009 conviction. Held: 1. This court had the authority to review the merits of the trial court’s dismissal of the postsentencing motion to withdraw the defendant’s guilty plea: reviewing courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction; moreover, even though the defendant conceded that the court properly dismissed his motion, the appeal was justiciable because there was an actual controversy as to whether this court should exercise its supervisory authority to treat the defendant’s appeal of the dismissal of his motion as an authorized late appeal of his judgment of conviction, the parties’ positions on the issue were adverse, this court had the power to resolve the controversy pursu- ant to Practice Book § 60-2, and it could have granted practical relief to the defendant. 2. The defendant failed to demonstrate that it was appropriate for this court to invoke its supervisory authority pursuant …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals