State v. Monge, 165 Conn. App. 36

Defendant Javier R. Monge, a noncitizen, pleaded guilty pursuant to a conditional plea on November 12, 2013, to multiple charges including two felonies (risk of injury to a child and criminal violation of a protective order) and several misdemeanors.
Condition of the plea: successful completion of programs (Evolve, anger management, substance abuse treatment) and cooperation with DCF would lead to vacatur of the two felony pleas and an overall sentence of three years incarceration, execution suspended, with three years probation on remaining misdemeanors.
Defendant complied and, on November 4, 2014, the court vacated the two felonies and imposed the agreed sentence on the remaining counts.
On January 30, 2015 (more than one month after sentencing), defendant filed an amended postsentencing motion to vacate his remaining pleas and to open the judgments, claiming his pleas were not knowing and voluntary and that federal immigration law changes after sentencing increased his deportation risk.
The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that it lacked authority to permit plea withdrawal after sentencing in the absence of express statutory or practice-book authorization. Defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Monge)	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a postsentencing motion to vacate pleas and open judgments	Court/state: no jurisdiction after sentence executed absent express authority	Motion claimed pleas were not knowing/voluntary and cited changed federal immigration consequences; sought reopening/reconstruction of sentence	Held: trial court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed
Whether the motion could be treated as a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22	State: motion was not framed or argued as attacking the sentence itself	Monge: recharacterized motion as attacking immigration-driven illegality of sentence	Held: recharacterization improper; claim attacks plea validity, not the sentence, so § 43-22 does not apply
Whether a post‑sentencing due‑process claim about voluntariness can be entertained	State: court lacks power to consider voluntariness claims after sentencing	Monge: voluntariness claim justified reopening because of changed consequences	Held: precedent bars post‑sentencing voluntariness challenges; court lacks jurisdiction
Whether acquiescence to filing of substitute information waived procedural defect claims	State: defendant acquiesced to being re‑put to plea on added misdemeanor counts	Monge: argued breaches of procedure (timing of substitute information)	Held: defendant acquiesced at plea hearing; procedural objection waived

State v. Alexander, 269 Conn. 107 (addresses standard of plenary review for jurisdictional questions)
Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 (trial court loses jurisdiction once sentence is executed absent express authorization)
State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356 (trial court lacks jurisdiction after sentence executed to entertain post‑sentencing challenges to plea validity)
State v. Ramos, 306 Conn. 125 (trial court may modify or vacate judgment before sentence is executed; jurisdiction terminates once custody begins)
State v. Dyous, 307 Conn. 299 (reaffirming lack of jurisdiction post‑sentence to hear due process plea‑voluntariness claims)
State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764 (post‑sentencing motion to withdraw plea barred by lack of jurisdiction)
State v. Casiano, 122 Conn. App. 61 (motion to correct illegal sentence cannot be used to attack plea voluntariness; court lacked jurisdiction)
State v. Edge, 150 Conn. App. 383 (adhering to principle that trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear post‑sentence voluntariness claims)
State v. Dukes, 29 Conn. App. 409 (defendant who permits filing of amended information without objection waives the procedural notice protection)