*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** MOMODOU LAMIN JOBE v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION (SC 20124) Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Ecker, Js. Syllabus The petitioner, who is not a United States citizen, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging, inter alia, his conviction of illegal possession of less than four ounces of marijuana. At some point after his release from custody in connection with that conviction, the petitioner traveled outside of the United States. When he attempted to return, he was denied reentry to and ordered removed from the United States on the basis of his conviction. At the time he filed his habeas petition, the petitioner was in federal immigration detention pending deportation. The habeas court, sua sponte, rendered judgment dismissing the petition, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of that petition on the ground that the protections afforded in Padilla v. Ken- tucky (559 U.S. 356), which was decided after the petitioner was con- victed, did not apply retroactively to the petitioner’s case. Thereafter, the petitioner, on the granting of certification, appealed to the Appellate Court. After the petitioner filed his initial brief with that court, the respondent, the Commissioner of Correction, filed an amended prelimi- nary statement of the issues in which he raised, for the first time, as an alternative ground for affirmance, the issue of whether the habeas court had subject matter jurisdiction when the petitioner failed to allege that he was in custody at the time he filed his habeas petition within the meaning of the statute (§ 52-466) governing applications for a writ of habeas corpus. In his initial brief to the Appellate Court, the respondent conceded that the habeas court improperly dismissed the petition on the basis of the nonretroactive application of Padilla but claimed that the judgment of dismissal should be affirmed on the alternative ground that the conviction …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
   
New User Registration
*Required field