179 Conn. App. 337
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Aceion Brown, a Jamaican national and U.S. permanent resident, pleaded guilty (Alford plea) on May 22, 2013 to possession of >4 ounces of marijuana and admitted probation violation; sentenced to 364 days.
- Court canvassed defendant and advised that noncitizens "may face" immigration consequences; defendant acknowledged understanding.
- Defendant completed his sentence March 17, 2014; DHS served a notice to appear that same day; immigration court ordered removal May 19, 2014.
- On February 10, 2015, while no longer in custody, Brown filed a pro se petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to advise him of deportation consequences and seeking vacatur of the conviction.
- Trial court expressed concern about jurisdiction but heard evidence and denied the coram nobis petition on the merits; on appeal the Appellate Court held the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded with direction to dismiss the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a coram nobis petition claiming ineffective assistance based on counsel's failure to advise about immigration consequences | Coram nobis was inappropriate because alternative remedies (habeas corpus while in custody, petition for new trial within three years) were available; prior availability defeats coram nobis jurisdiction | Brown argued habeas was unavailable because he did not learn of immigration consequences until after release, so coram nobis was the only adequate remedy | Court held trial court lacked jurisdiction: Brown could have pursued habeas while in custody or a new-trial petition within three years, so coram nobis was improper and petition must be dismissed (not denied) |
| Whether the plea canvass violated statutory requirements regarding immigration advisement (§ 54-1j) | State argued canvass satisfied advisement requirement and counsel’s advice claim should be litigated in habeas/new trial | Brown contended he did not understand the adverse immigration consequences and counsel was ineffective | Court did not reach merits; the court noted the § 54-1j challenge was withdrawn in light of State v. Lima, and disposition turned on jurisdictional defect for coram nobis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stephenson, 154 Conn. App. 587 (Conn. App. 2015) (prior availability of habeas defeats coram nobis jurisdiction)
- State v. Sienkiewicz, 177 Conn. App. 863 (Conn. App. 2017) (same; defendant could have raised counsel effectiveness in habeas even if immigration consequences were not yet imminent)
- State v. Henderson, 259 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2002) (coram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available only when no adequate legal remedy exists)
- Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 690 (Conn. 2010) (subject matter jurisdiction review is plenary)
- State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749 (Conn. 2012) (ineffective assistance claims properly brought in petition for new trial or habeas)
- State v. Lima, 325 Conn. 623 (Conn. 2017) (statutory canvass § 54-1j does not require direct inquiry whether defendant discussed immigration consequences with counsel)