State v. Sienkiewicz, 173 A.3d 955

Pawel Sienkiewicz, a Polish national who overstayed a tourist visa, faced federal removal proceedings before he committed a September 2010 assault.
While removal proceedings were pending, he pleaded guilty (April/July 2013) to assault in the third degree; the court advised him the plea "may have consequences of deportation, exclusion from readmission or denial of naturalization" and defense counsel stated he had discussed immigration consequences with immigration counsel.
Sienkiewicz later sought U nonimmigrant (U visa) status (filed 2011); his petition was placed on a U‑visa wait list in 2014 and he was removed from the wait list in March 2015 as potentially inadmissible due to a crime involving moral turpitude.
On June 19, 2015 he filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis seeking to withdraw the assault plea and vacate the conviction, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him of immigration consequences.
The state moved to dismiss, arguing coram nobis was unavailable because habeas corpus had been an adequate remedy while Sienkiewicz was in custody; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the petition.
On appeal, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed, holding coram nobis was unavailable because the defendant could have pursued habeas relief while in custody (following State v. Stephenson).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Sienkiewicz)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant coram nobis relief	Coram nobis is appropriate because habeas was unavailable/ not ripe while he was in custody because he did not know U‑visa consequences until after release	Coram nobis is unavailable when an adequate remedy (habeas corpus) existed and could have been pursued while in custody	Court held no jurisdiction for coram nobis: habeas was an available remedy while defendant was in custody; coram nobis therefore unavailable
Whether coram nobis remains an available remedy under Connecticut law	Implied: coram nobis should be allowed here due to unique collateral immigration consequences	State suggested coram nobis is essentially superseded by other remedies, but court declined to abolish it	Court assumed coram nobis still exists but emphasized its narrow scope and limits its availability where habeas is adequate

Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 690 (Court reiterating plenary review for subject matter jurisdiction)
State v. Stephenson, 154 Conn. App. 587 (coram nobis unavailable where habeas corpus was an adequate remedy available while defendant was in custody)
State v. Jerzy G., 326 Conn. 206 (discussing prejudicial collateral immigration consequences and ripeness in related context)
State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356 (describing coram nobis as ancient remedy and its scope)
State v. Grisgraber, 183 Conn. 383 (earlier explanation of coram nobis scope)