State v. Lage, 141 Conn. App. 510

Lage appeals the denial of his motion to vacate judgments and withdraw guilty pleas on six charges across 2005, 2008, and 2009; sentences included incarceration and probation, with probation violations leading to further sentences.
In 2005, Lage pled guilty to possession of narcotics; the court canvassed him and sentenced him to one year with execution suspended and two years of probation.
In 2008, Lage pled guilty to burglary in the third degree and admitted violating probation; after canvassing immigration consequences, the court imposed three years incarceration with suspension after nine months and three years probation, contingent on processing for treatment eligibility.
In 2009, Lage pleaded guilty to additional charges (criminal trespass, resisting arrest, criminal mischief) while acknowledging a detainer; the court continued the canvass, then sentenced him to an eighteen-month term in lieu of a longer term if treatment was unavailable, with continued detention by ICE following the proceeding.
ICE detainer information and its impact on treatment eligibility prompted continued proceedings to determine program eligibility, with the possibility of an eighteen-month sentence if treatment was foreclosed.
Lage moved in 2010 to vacate the judgments and withdraw pleas; the trial court denied, finding substantial compliance with § 54-lj; the appeal followed, challenging the 2008 canvass and the overall voluntariness of the pleas.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the court substantially comply with § 54-lj in the 2008 canvass regarding immigration consequences?	Lage asserts the canvass failed to determine understanding of immigration consequences with sufficient particularity.	Lage argues the court did not meet § 54-lj’s requirements and thus breached plea validity.	Yes; substantial compliance found.
Were the six pleas knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered despite the canvass issues?	Golding review for unpreserved constitutional claims; argues improper canvass compromised voluntariness.	Contends multiple failures (jury-right warnings, counsel discussion, Practice Book 39-19) invalidated pleas.	Pleas entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily; Golding prongs not satisfied.
Did the 2009 canvass violate 54-lj by not pausing for counsel after the detainer, affecting jury-trial rights?	Argues failure to confer with counsel after sidebar undermined voluntariness.	Defense counsel did not request a continuance; defendant accepted program alternative and was properly canvassed.	Not reversible; canvass adequate and pleas voluntary.

State v. Hall, 303 Conn. 527 (2012) (substantial compliance with 54-lj standard; adequacy of plea canvass)
State v. Malcolm, 257 Conn. 653 (2001) (substantial compliance suffices for immigration consequences)
State v. James, 139 Conn. App. 308 (2012) (statutory language of 54-lj plain; need not prove actual discussion with counsel)
Bowers v. Warden, 19 Conn. App. 440 (1989) (proper reliance on defendant's responses during canvass)
State v. Burgos, 118 Conn. App. 465 (2009) (plea canvass sufficiency and voluntariness considerations)
State v. Claudio, 123 Conn. App. 286 (2010) (substantial compliance standard for warnings of direct consequences)
State v. Badgett, 200 Conn. 412 (1986) (adequacy of warnings regarding plea rights without overemphasis on counsel)
State v. Brown, 18 Conn. App. 716 (1989) (court not obliged to order continuances sua sponte after sidebar)