*********************************************** 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. EVANDRO M. LIMA (AC 39400) Sheldon, Elgo and Mihalakos, Js. Syllabus Convicted, following a plea of guilty, of the crime of conspiracy to commit larceny in the sixth degree, the defendant appealed to this court. He claimed that the trial court improperly denied his motion to vacate the judgment of conviction and to withdraw his plea because that court did not determine whether he understood the immigration consequences of his guilty plea prior to accepting it, as required by statute (§ 54-1j). Held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate; at no time during the plea canvass did the trial court ask the defendant if he understood the potential immigration conse- quences of his guilty plea and, instead, simply advised him that his conviction could result in his removal or deportation from the United States, and, thus, the trial court did not substantially comply with the requirements of § 54-1j (a) prior to accepting the defendant’s plea, and the court, in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate, improperly relied on the facts that the defendant, when entering his guilty plea, had expressed his absolute satisfaction with his attorney’s representation of him and told the court that there was no reason that his plea should not have been accepted, which were meaningless statements in the absence of some indication that the defendant knew and understood the potential consequences of his guilty plea. Argued November 30, 2017—officially released March 6, 2018 Procedural History Information charging the defendant with the crime of conspiracy to commit larceny in the sixth degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Britain, geographical area number seventeen, where the defendant was presented to the court, John- son, J., on a plea of guilty; judgment of guilty; thereafter, the court, Dyer, J., denied the defendant’s motion to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals