*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** IBRAHEEN OLORUNFUNMI v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 44187) Alexander, Clark and Palmer, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, a citizen of Nigeria, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his trial counsel, E, rendered ineffective assistance for having failed to advise him properly about the immigration consequences of his guilty plea to the reduced charge of larceny in the second degree. During the trial court’s canvass of the petitioner in the plea proceeding, the petitioner stated that he understood the possible immigration conse- quences of his guilty plea and that E had discussed those consequences with him. E also stated that he had discussed those consequences with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was deported to Nigeria on the ground that the larceny conviction constituted an aggravated felony under federal law, which mandated deportation for such offenses in virtually all cases. At the habeas trial, E testified, inter alia, that he discussed with the petitioner the immigration consequences of his guilty plea, and the petitioner was not concerned about deportation but, rather, his sole concern was the term of incarceration he would receive upon conviction and he sought to minimize his sentence. The petitioner testi- fied, inter alia, that when he entered the guilty plea, he was unaware of its immigration consequences and that E had told him that a conviction for larceny in the second degree would not make him eligible for deporta- tion. The court rendered judgment denying the habeas petition and denied the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held that the habeas court correctly denied the petition for certification to appeal from the denial of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, as the petitioner failed to establish that the issues were debatable among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that they were …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals