155 Conn.App. 154
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Paulino, a Dominican Republic citizen, was convicted in 2008 of narcotics offenses in Connecticut and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment; his convictions involved possession with intent to sell near a public school and by a person not drug-dependent.
- He pursued direct appeal; convictions were affirmed by this court on March 1, 2011.
- While incarcerated, Paulino filed a pro se habeas corpus petition in 2011 asserting ineffective assistance, unlawful police conduct, and actual innocence.
- In 2012 the immigration court ordered removal based on an overstay and narcotics convictions; the Board of Immigration Appeals and then the Second Circuit dismissed related appeals, culminating in 2013.
- A habeas status conference in January 2013 disclosed Paulino’s deportation status; the habeas court dismissed the petition without prejudice and Paulino sought certification to appeal, which was denied in March 2013.
- The issue on appeal is whether the habeas court properly denied certification to appeal given mootness and potential relief remains unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of certification to appeal was proper given mootness | Paulino argues mootness should not bar review if relief could be possible | Commissioner argues mootness deprives appellate jurisdiction since no practical relief could be granted | No abuse of discretion; appeal dismissed as moot under standards of Lozada/Simms framework |
| Whether the collateral consequences doctrine preserves jurisdiction | Paulino contends collateral consequences allow review despite mootness | Commissioner contends collateral consequences not shown; no evidence of return eligibility | Collateral consequences not established; jurisdiction remains moot and not preserved |
| Whether the standard for reviewing certification denials applies | Paulino relies on Lozada/Simms factors to show debatable issues | Commissioner asserts standard requires showing abuse of discretion | Standard applied; petitioner failed to show abuse of discretion on the underlying issues |
| Whether deportation during pendency affects the underlying habeas claim | Paulino argues petition remains live despite deportation | Commissioner asserts mootness when no practical relief possible | Deportation leads to mootness; no live controversy to resolve on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Quiroga v. Commissioner of Correction, 149 Conn. App. 168 (2014) (deportation during pendency requires mootness analysis; collateral consequences doctrine not applied absent evidence of relief)
- State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293 (2006) (depicts when a guilty plea is not the sole cause of deportation; affects mootness analysis in appeals)
- State v. Chavarro, 130 Conn. App. 12 (2011) (collateral consequences doctrine applied to sustain jurisdiction when prejudicial consequences are reasonably possible)
- Wyatt Energy, Inc. v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC, 308 Conn. 719 (2013) (mootness and practical relief standards governing justiciability)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (statutory barrier to merits review after certification denial; Lozada framework for abuse of discretion)
- We the People of Connecticut, Inc. v. Malloy, 150 Conn. App. 576 (2014) (discusses mootness and need for actual controversy)