Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 690

Petitioner Kenneth Richardson pleaded guilty in 1996 to a substitute count of possession of marijuana with intent to sell; sentenced to three years, execution suspended, and three years probation.
In 2000, Richardson was federally charged and later convicted, receiving a life sentence enhanced by Richardson's prior state drug convictions.
On July 17, 2008, Richardson filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and lack of factual basis for the state plea.
The habeas court dismissed the petition on August 8, 2008 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding Richardson was not in custody under § 52-466 when he filed.
Richardson sought certification to appeal and the court temporarily explored whether the custody rule could be satisfied by continuous custody via concurrent or overlapping sentences, referencing Garlotte v. Fordice.
The Supreme Court affirmed the habeas court’s dismissal, holding Richardson was not in custody on the 1996 conviction when he filed, and thus lacked jurisdiction; it declined to treat the petition as a writ of error coram nobis because the issue was not preserved below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 52-466 require custody on the challenged conviction at filing?	Richardson: custody qua custody suffices, not confined to a specific sentence.	Commissioner: custody on the challenged conviction is required at filing; not satisfied here.	Petition dismissed for lack of custody; proper jurisdictional rule applied.
Should the habeas petition be construed as a writ of error coram nobis if § 52-466 lacks custody?	Richardson: the court should liberalize to review as coram nobis; plain error or supervisory review possible if unpreserved.	Commissioner: no preservation and no sua sponte conversion; coram nobis not reviewed.	Court declined to apply coram nobis review or Golding plain-error analysis; did not convert sua sponte.

Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (2006) (custody requirement; collateral consequences insufficient)
Lebron v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 507 (2005) (expired conviction not custody; collateral consequences do not satisfy §52-466)
McCarthy v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 557 (2005) (petitioner must be in custody on the challenged conviction at filing)
Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563 (2005) (custody requirement; consecutive vs. nonconsecutive sentences discussed)
State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356 (2009) (writ of error coram nobis scope and limits; preserve/exception standards)
Garlotte v. Fordice, 515 U.S. 39 (1995) (continuous custody theory for consecutive sentences; limited applicability)