State v. Dayvid J.

************************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

2 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
State v. Dayvid J.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DAYVID J.*
(AC 46382)
Alvord, Suarez and Westbrook, Js.

Syllabus

Convicted, on a plea of guilty, of the crime of strangulation in the second
degree, the petitioner appealed to this court from the judgment of the
trial court dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis because
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. In his petition, the petitioner sought
permission to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming, inter alia, that his trial
counsel had rendered ineffective assistance. Held that the trial court
properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
petition for a writ of error coram nobis; because the petitioner could
have raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus during his period of probation, he failed to avail
himself of an alternative legal remedy available to him; moreover, this
court declined the petitioner’s request that this court overrule State v.
Stephenson (154 Conn. App. 587), which clearly held that the prior
availability of a writ of habeas corpus defeats the jurisdiction of the
trial court to entertain a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, the
petitioner having failed to file a motion requesting that this court hear
his appeal en banc.
Argued May 29—officially released September 3, 2024

Procedural History

Information charging the petitioner with the crimes
of strangulation in the second degree and disorderly
conduct, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial
district of Windham, geographical area number eleven,
where the petitioner was presented to the court, New-
son, J., on a plea of guilty to strangulation in the second
* In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the
victims of domestic violence, we decline to identify the petitioner, the victim,
or others through whom the victim’s identity may be ascertained. See General
Statutes § 54-86e.
Moreover, in accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3)
(2018), as amended by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization
Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-103, § 106, 136 Stat. 49, 851; we decline to
identify any person protected or sought to be protected under a protection
order, protective order, or a restraining order that was issued or applied
for, or others through whom that party’s identity may be ascertained.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 1

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 3
State v. Dayvid J.

degree; judgment of guilty in accordance with the plea;
thereafter, the court, K. Shay, J., rendered judgment
dismissing the petitioner’s petition for a writ of error
coram nobis, and the petitioner appealed to this court.
Affirmed.

Vishal K. Garg, assigned counsel, for the appellant
(petitioner).
James A. Killen, senior assistant state’s attorney,
with whom, on the brief, was Anne F. Mahoney, state’s
attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Dayvid J., appeals from
the judgment of the trial court dismissing his petition
for a writ of error coram nobis. On appeal, the petitioner
claims that the court improperly determined that it
lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition
and, therefore, erred in dismissing his petition. We
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are rele-
vant to our disposition of this appeal. On or about Sep-
tember 21, 2017, the petitioner was arrested in connec-
tion with a domestic dispute. The petitioner was
subsequently charged with strangulation in the second
degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-64bb and
disorderly conduct in violation of General Statutes
§ 53a-182. On March 6, 2018, the petitioner pleaded
guilty to strangulation in the second degree in violation
of § 53a-64bb and was sentenced to a term of three
years of incarceration, execution fully suspended, with
three years of probation.
On January 23, 2023, the self-represented petitioner
filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging
that he had ‘‘exhausted all [his] remedies’’ with respect
Page 2 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

4 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
State v. Dayvid J.

to his conviction and requesting that the court allow
him to withdraw his 2018 guilty plea. He alleged, inter
alia, that he had received ineffective assistance from
his trial counsel, in that he was not informed that he
was pleading guilty to an aggravated felony that would
render him deportable. He alleged that he had been
in the custody of immigration authorities since May
3, 2022.1

On January 24, 2023, the court, K. Shay, J., dismissed
the petition on the basis that the court lacked jurisdic-
tion. The court stated that the petitioner could have
raised his allegations of ineffective assistance of coun-
sel at any time during his three year period of probation,
which had expired in 2021. The court further explained
that the fact that the petitioner’s immigration conse-
quences arose after he was no longer in custody did
not alter its jurisdictional determination. The petitioner
filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court
denied. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court
improperly determined that it lacked subject matter
jurisdiction over his petition for a writ of error coram
nobis. We begin our analysis by setting forth the applica-
ble standard of review and relevant legal principles.
‘‘Our Supreme Court has long held that because [a]
determination regarding a trial court’s subject matter
jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary.
. . . [A] court lacks discretion to consider the merits
of a case over which it is without jurisdiction . . . .

‘‘A writ of error coram nobis is an ancient common-
law remedy which authorized the trial judge, within
three years, to vacate the judgment of the same court
1
The petitioner also alleged that he unsuccessfully had filed a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus in June, 2022, and had submitted a prior petition
for a writ of error coram nobis.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 5
State v. Dayvid J.

if the party aggrieved by the judgment could present
facts, not appearing in the record, which, if true, would
show that such judgment was void or voidable. . . . A
writ of error coram nobis lies only in the unusual situa-
tion where no adequate remedy is provided by law.
. . . Moreover, when habeas corpus affords a proper
and complete remedy the writ of error coram nobis will
not lie. . . . The errors in fact on which a writ of error
[coram nobis] can be predicated are few. . . . This can
be only where the party had no legal capacity to appear,
or where he had no legal opportunity, or where the
court had no power to render judgment.’’ (Citations
omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v.
Brown, 179 Conn. App. 337, 341–42, 179 A.3d 807, cert.
denied, 328 Conn. 914, 180 A.3d 594 (2018).

The petitioner’s primary argument on appeal is that
‘‘[t]he proper inquiry for whether the defendant had an
adequate remedy at law requires looking at the circum-
stances at the time the defendant filed his petition,
and not whether there was a prior remedy of which the
defendant could have availed himself.’’ (Emphasis in
original.) Recent decisions of this court are controlling
on this issue. In State v. Sienkiewicz, 177 Conn. App.
863, 173 A.3d 955 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 997,
176 A.3d 558 (2018), this court held that ‘‘[t]here can
be no doubt . . . that the defendant would have had
the ability to contest the effectiveness of counsel and
the validity of his plea in a habeas action even if [adverse
immigration consequences were] not imminent. In State
v. Stephenson, [154 Conn. App. 587, 589, 108 A.3d 1125
(2015)] . . . [t]he record [did] not reflect that any
adverse immigration consequences [had] yet occurred
by the time the defendant was no longer in custody on
the sentence in issue, and we held that the defendant
could have brought an action seeking a writ of habeas
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

6 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1
State v. Dayvid J.

corpus. . . . Stephenson clearly holds that the prior
availability of the writ of habeas corpus defeats the
jurisdiction of the trial court to entertain a petition for
a writ of error coram nobis.’’ (Citations omitted; internal
quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sienkiewicz, supra,
870–71; see also, e.g., State v. Brown, supra, 179 Conn.
App. 342–43 (rejecting petitioner’s argument that he
could not have pursued writ of habeas corpus while in
custody because he did not learn of adverse immigra-
tion consequences until after he was released).
In the present case, because the petitioner could have
raised his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus during his period
of probation, he had alternative legal remedies available
to him. Accordingly, the court properly determined that
it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the
petition for a writ of error coram nobis.2
Recognizing the binding precedent of Stephenson,
Sienkiewicz, and Brown, the petitioner argues that Ste-
phenson was wrongly decided and urges this court to
overrule it. The petitioner, however, did not file a
motion requesting that this court hear his appeal en
banc. ‘‘It is well established . . . that one panel of this
court cannot overrule the precedent established by a
previous panel’s holding. . . . As we often have stated,
this court’s policy dictates that one panel should not,
on its own, reverse the ruling of a previous panel. The
reversal may be accomplished only if the appeal is heard
en banc. . . . Prudence, then, dictates that this panel
decline to revisit such requests.’’ (Internal quotation
marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 214 Conn. App. 511,
281 A.3d 501, cert. denied, 345 Conn. 967, 285 A.3d 736
In light of this conclusion, we do not reach the state’s alternative ground
2

for affirmance, pursuant to which it argues that the court also lacked jurisdic-
tion because the writ of error coram nobis was filed more than three years
after the judgment of conviction was rendered.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5

0 Conn. App. 1 ,0 7
State v. Dayvid J.

(2022). Accordingly, we decline the petitioner’s invita-
tion to revisit our precedent.3
The judgment is affirmed.

3
The petitioner also asserts, as a separate claim on appeal, that the court
failed to properly canvass him regarding the immigration consequences of
his guilty plea. The state responds that, ‘‘[b]ecause the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to consider the claim asserted in the instant petition for a writ
of error coram nobis . . . this court likewise is without jurisdiction to
adjudicate the merits of that claim.’’ In his reply brief, the petitioner, in
reliance on State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764, 778, 894 A.2d 963 (2006), requests
that we invoke our supervisory authority to address the merits of his claim.
‘‘[C]onstitutional, statutory and procedural limitations are generally ade-
quate to protect the rights of the defendant and the integrity of the judicial
system. Our supervisory powers are invoked only in the rare circumstance
where these traditional protections are inadequate to ensure the fair and
just administration of the courts.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State
v. Hill, 307 Conn. 689, 706, 59 A.3d 196 (2013). Under the circumstances of
this case, the exercise of our supervisory authority is not warranted.