154 Conn.App. 587
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Andrew Stephenson, a Jamaican national whose work visa expired in 2007, pleaded guilty under Alford to three charges on April 15, 2011; judge imposed one year incarceration, execution suspended, and three years probation.
- Probation was terminated early on February 28, 2012; no deportation or other adverse immigration consequence had occurred at time of coram nobis petition.
- On January 28, 2013 (within three years of the guilty plea), Stephenson filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and challenging the plea.
- The trial court found it had jurisdiction and denied the petition on the merits.
- The Appellate Court reversed, holding the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain coram nobis because Stephenson had an available habeas remedy while on probation.
- The case was remanded with direction to dismiss the coram nobis petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Stephenson) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether coram nobis was a proper vehicle for ineffective-assistance claims after a suspended sentence with probation | Coram nobis was proper because habeas was unavailable while sentence included a suspended term | Habeas would have been available while on probation; coram nobis inappropriate if other adequate remedies existed | Court held coram nobis improper because habeas was an available remedy during probation, so court lacked jurisdiction to decide coram nobis merits |
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the coram nobis petition | Court could consider coram nobis within three years of plea | State argued jurisdictional prerequisites for coram nobis were not met | Court held it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and reversed/dismissed petition |
| Whether petitioner’s suspended sentence prevented ‘custody’ for habeas purposes | Petitioner contended suspended execution meant he was not in custody | State argued probation is a legal restraint amounting to custody for habeas jurisdiction | Court agreed probation is legal restraint and habeas would have been available during probation |
| Whether coram nobis should be retained generally given other remedies | Petitioner implied coram nobis still available | State suggested modern remedies (new trial, motion to withdraw plea) may supplant coram nobis | Court did not decide abolition question; resolved case on jurisdictional ground |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn. 690 (2010) (habeas court lacks jurisdiction when petitioner is no longer in custody)
- State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356 (2009) (Superior Court generally lacks jurisdiction after defendant begins serving sentence)
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514 (2006) (custody requirement for habeas is jurisdictional)
- Guerra v. State, 150 Conn. App. 68 (2014) (probation completion ends custody for habeas; habeas available while on probation)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (approving entry of guilty plea while maintaining assertion of innocence)
- Hubbard v. Hartford, 74 Conn. 452 (1902) (historical scope of coram nobis relief when party lacked legal capacity or court lacked power)