State v. Palmenta

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 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 the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. SCOTT R. PALMENTA (AC 42048) Lavine, Bright and Flynn, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who had been convicted, on a plea of guilty, of the crimes of attempt to commit criminal mischief in the third degree and attempt to commit criminal trespass in the third degree, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. In his petition, the petitioner sought to vacate his conviction, claiming, inter alia, that there had been no probable cause for his arrest on the initial charges of attempt to commit burglary in the third degree and attempt to commit larceny in the sixth degree. The court concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction and denied the petition. Held that the trial court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the petitioner’s petition for a writ of error coram nobis: the petitioner could have filed a petition for a new trial, as opposed to the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, but the record reflects that he failed to do so, and, therefore, the peti- tioner failed to avail himself of an alternative legal remedy available to him, which deprived the court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of his petition; accordingly, because the court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for a writ of error coram nobis, it should have rendered judgment dismissing rather than denying the petition. Argued November 20, 2019—officially released February 18, 2020 Procedural History Substitute information charging the petitioner with the crimes of attempt to commit criminal mischief in the third degree and attempt to commit criminal trespass in the third degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk, geographical area number twenty, where the petitioner was pre- sented to the court, Hernandez, J., on a plea of guilty; …Original document