*********************************************** 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. ACEION BROWN (AC 38855) Keller, Bright and Mihalakos, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who had been convicted, on a plea of guilty, of the crime of possession of more than four ounces of marijuana, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, the defendant sought to vacate his conviction, claiming that, at the time he had entered the plea, he did not understand the immigration consequences that would result from the plea and conviction, and that his trial counsel’s failure to advise him of those consequences constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court, after considering the petition on its merits, denied the petition. Held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petition for a writ of error coram nobis: the defendant could have raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a habeas petition while he was in custody related to the subject conviction or in a petition for a new trial for a period of three years subsequent to the date of that conviction, and, therefore, he had prior alternative legal remedies available to him, which deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain the petition; accordingly, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, it should have rendered judgment dismissing rather than denying the petition. Argued November 14, 2017—officially released January 23, 2018 Procedural History Information charging the defendant with the crimes of possession of narcotics with intent to sell, possession of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school and possession of more than four ounces of marijuana, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, geo- graphical area number fourteen, where the defendant was presented to the court, Lobo, J., on a ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals