334 Conn. 636
Conn.2020Background
- Jobe pleaded guilty in 2010 to possession of less than four ounces of marijuana; sentence: 11 months, execution suspended, two years conditional discharge.
- After release he traveled abroad; upon return in 2016 he was denied reentry and placed in federal immigration detention and ordered removed based on the 2010 conviction.
- In August 2016 Jobe filed a Connecticut habeas petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and seeking to withdraw his plea.
- The habeas court sua sponte dismissed the petition for lack of merit, relying on Padilla nonretroactivity (Chaidez).
- On appeal, the Commissioner first raised, in an amended filing, that Connecticut courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Jobe was not "in custody" on the challenged conviction when he filed his petition. Jobe responded in his reply brief arguing custody should be construed expansively to include federal immigration detention.
- The Appellate Court affirmed on the alternative custody ground and declined to consider Jobe’s reply-brief expansion argument; this Court granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Court.
Issues
| Issue | Jobe's Argument | Commissioner’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellate Court could refuse to consider Jobe’s reply-brief argument (custody expansion) | Jobe had no earlier notice of respondent’s jurisdictional defense, so replying was his first opportunity; Appellate Court should consider it | Reply-brief arguments are disfavored; claim raised late | Appellate Court erred to decline review for that procedural reason, but error was harmless because binding precedent required rejection of expansion and issue was properly before Supreme Court. |
| Whether federal immigration detention (pending deportation) satisfies § 52-466 custody requirement for state-conviction habeas | Detention was solely the consequence of the expired state conviction; Jobe couldn’t have challenged conviction earlier and should be allowed to proceed | Collateral consequences (including immigration detention) do not satisfy custody; habeas jurisdiction absent | Held for Commissioner: collateral consequences of an expired conviction, including federal immigration detention, do not constitute custody under § 52-466; habeas court lacked jurisdiction. |
| Whether the 2006 amendment to § 52-466 (centralize inmate filings in Tolland) overruled precedent and expanded custody definition | Amendment plain-text permits habeas by anyone "confined in a correctional facility as a result of a conviction," signaling expansion | Amendment was a technical, procedural change to centralize filings in Tolland, not a substantive change to custody | Held for Commissioner: legislative history shows amendment was technical and did not alter the jurisdictional custody requirement set by precedent. |
| Appropriate forum for challenging federal immigration detention that results from an expired state conviction | State habeas should be available when immigration detention flows from the state conviction | State habeas jurisdiction limited; federal habeas is the proper avenue to challenge federal detention | Court: Challenges to federal immigration detention must be pursued in federal court; Connecticut habeas jurisdiction does not reach federal custody arising from expired state convictions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507 (Conn. 2005) (custody requirement in § 52-466 is jurisdictional; collateral consequences of expired conviction insufficient)
- McCarthy v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 557 (Conn. 2005) (petitioner must be in custody on the conviction under attack when petition filed)
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 517 (Conn. 2006) (parolee detained by federal immigration was not in custody on expired state convictions for § 52-466 jurisdiction)
- Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 690 (Conn. 2010) (rejecting argument that mere confinement, apart from custody on specific sentence, satisfies § 52-466)
- Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563 (Conn. 2005) (habeas court lacked jurisdiction where petitioner not in custody on conviction under attack)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (ineffective-assistance claim about counsel’s failure to advise re: deportation consequences; discussed regarding nonretroactivity)