*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** JOSEPH STEPHENSON v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (AC 41812) Alvord, Devlin and Norcott, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who previously had pleaded guilty to larceny in the fifth degree and larceny in the sixth degree, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to accurately advise him about the consequences of pleading guilty under federal immigration law. The petitioner was ordered removed from the United States on the basis of the two larceny convictions as well as a prior conviction of robbery. The habeas court rendered judgment dismissing the habeas petition as moot, concluding that it could provide no practical relief because the petitioner did not challenge the robbery conviction in his amended habeas petition and that conviction was a separate basis for the petitioner’s ordered removal. Thereafter, the habeas court granted the petition for certification to appeal, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court did not improperly dismiss the amended habeas petition as moot because no practical relief from his ordered removal could be afforded to the petitioner; a decision on the merits challenging the larceny convictions could not provide the petitioner relief from his ordered removal because the petitioner’s robbery conviction, not chal- lenged in the amended habeas petition, serves as an independent basis for the petitioner’s ordered removal. 2. The trial court improperly dismissed the amended habeas petition as moot because the larceny convictions give rise to a reasonable possibility of prejudicial collateral consequences as a matter of law; the petitioner has not yet been removed from the United States and additional sources of prejudicial consequences apart from removal and barred reentry are a reasonable possibility in connection with the petitioner’s potential future involvement with the criminal justice system, and, accordingly, the judgment was reversed and a new habeas trial was ordered. 3. This court declined to review the ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals