State v. Sienkiewicz

*********************************************** 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. PAWEL SIENKIEWICZ (AC 39051) Keller, Prescott and Beach, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who had been convicted, on a plea of guilty, of the crime of assault in the third degree, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, the defendant sought to withdraw his guilty plea and to vacate or void his conviction, alleging that, at the time he had entered the plea, he did not understand the immigration consequences that would result from the plea and sentence, and that his attorney’s failure to advise him of those consequences constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. Prior to the assault, federal authorities had initiated removal proceedings against the defendant because he had overstayed the term of a tourist visa. Subsequent to his plea and sentence, while the defendant was on a wait list for a certain type of visa that would have provided him relief from removal, federal authorities notified him that he was ineligible for admission to the United States because of the assault. The state filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of error coram nobis because the defendant had failed to pursue a writ of habeas corpus while he was in custody. Held that the trial court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, that court having properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition because the defendant had an adequate remedy at law in the form of habeas corpus relief while he was in custody on the assault charge; the defendant had the ability to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when he was in custody in order to challenge the effectiveness of his counsel and the validity of his ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals