*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** IN RE FAIZ SIDDIQUI (AC 41023) DiPentima, C. J., and Lavine and Bishop, Js. Syllabus The petitioner filed a motion seeking the cancellation of an unserved arrest warrant pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 36-6) that governs the cancel- lation of arrest warrants. The trial court denied the petitioner’s motion for cancellation on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion. Thereafter, the trial court denied two motions to reargue filed by the petitioner, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. Contrary to the state’s claim, this court had jurisdiction over the petition- er’s appeal; the trial court’s denial of the petitioner’s motion for cancella- tion of the arrest warrant terminated a separate and distinct proceeding, and, therefore, it satisfied the first prong of the test set forth in State v. Curcio (191 Conn. 27) that governs when an interlocutory ruling is appealable. 2. The trial court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petitioner’s motion for cancellation of the arrest warrant: because there was no pending criminal case before the trial court and the plain language of Practice Book § 36-6 provides that only the prosecuting authority and the judicial authority may act to cancel an arrest warrant and does not set forth an avenue for the petitioner to seek cancellation of the unserved arrest warrant, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petitioner’s motion for cancellation; moreover, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, it should have dismissed the motion rather than denied it, and, therefore this court concluded that the form of the judgment was improper, reversed the judgment and remanded the case with direction to dismiss the motion. Argued October 10, 2019—officially released February 11, 2020 Procedural History Motion for cancellation of an arrest warrant, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, geographical ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals