State v. Jerzy G.

11 Citing cases

  1. Stephenson v. Comm'r of Corr.

    197 Conn. App. 172 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    (Citation omitted.)); see also St. Juste v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 328 Conn. at 209 n.10, 177 A.3d 1144 ("We released our decision in State v. Jerzy G. [326 Conn. 206, 162 A.3d 692 (2017) ], after the parties filed their briefs in the present appeal but prior to oral argument. The parties have filed supplemental briefs addressing the effect, if any, of our decision in Jerzy G. on the present appeal, in response to our order ...."); St. Juste. v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, at 208, 177 A.3d 1144 ("mootness implicates the court's subject matter jurisdiction" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Because our order for supplemental briefing from the parties involved questions that concern mootness and, thus, implicate subject matter jurisdiction, it was proper for us both to issue the order and now to discuss the questions raised therein.

  2. St. Juste v. Comm'r of Corr.

    328 Conn. 198 (Conn. 2018)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that appeal from denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus was not moot, despite petitioner's subsequent deportation, because challenged conviction gave "rise to a reasonable possibility of prejudicial collateral consequences—namely, his deportation and a barrier to reentry"

    (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jerzy G. , 326 Conn. 206, 213, 162 A.3d 692 (2017).The collateral consequences doctrine is an exception to the traditional direct injury requirement of mootness.

  3. State v. Gomes

    337 Conn. 826 (Conn. 2021)   Cited 9 times
    Cautioning that model jury instructions are to be used as " ‘guide’ " and are for instructive purposes

    Following submission of the parties’ briefs to this court, the defendant was deported to Cape Verde. Because the record on appeal did not disclose the basis for the defendant's deportation, we directed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing whether the defendant's removal from the United States had rendered the appeal moot under State v. Aquino , 279 Conn. 293, 901 A.2d 1194 (2006), and State v. Jerzy G ., 326 Conn. 206, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). We did so because, in Aquino , this court held that a defendant's deportation during the pendency of his appeal had rendered his appeal moot insofar as the record did not disclose whether his guilty plea was the sole reason for his deportation, and, as a result, it was not clear whether we could afford him any practical relief. State v. Aquino , supra, at 298, 901 A.2d 1194.

  4. State v. Jerzy G.

    183 Conn. App. 757 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 3 times
    In State v. Jerzy G., supra, 183 Conn. App. at 770, 193 A.3d 1215, this court upheld the trial court's termination of a defendant's participation in an accelerated rehabilitation program when the court's decision "was a reasonable application of our law and did not result in injustice to the defendant."

    This court previously dismissed the appeal as moot under State v. Aquino , 279 Conn. 293, 901 A.2d 1194 (2006). State v. Jerzy G. , 162 Conn. App. 156, 130 A.3d 303 (2015), rev'd, 326 Conn. 206, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). Holding that Aquino does not control the present case, our Supreme Court reversed this court's judgment and remanded the case to this court for further proceedings.

  5. State v. Sienkiewicz

    177 Conn. App. 863 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)   Cited 5 times
    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 its initial brief to this court, the state claimed that this appeal was moot in light of State v. Aquino, 279 Conn. 293, 901 A.2d 1194 (2006). After this appeal was argued orally in this court, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in State v. Jerzy G., 326 Conn. 206, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). We ordered supplemental briefing addressing the effect of Jerzy G. on this appeal.

  6. U.S. Bank v. Rothermel

    339 Conn. 366 (Conn. 2021)   Cited 19 times
    Finding continuing 375equitable jurisdiction where movant relied on misrepresentations by loan servicer that caused her to fail to file motion to open before passage of law day

    Although the claim she presented was not identical to the one raised in Melahn , the defendant alleged that the servicer made erroneous written and oral representations that justified the court's exercise of jurisdiction to consider those equitable claims of accident or mistake, which, if meritorious, could have afforded the practical relief sought. See State v. Jerzy G. , 326 Conn. 206, 221, 162 A.3d 692 (2017) ("[i]t is a settled principle under both federal and Connecticut case law that, if a favorable decision necessarily could not afford the practical relief sought, the case is moot" (emphasis added)); Milford Power Co., LLC v. Alstom Power, Inc. , 263 Conn. 616, 626, 822 A.2d 196 (2003) ("[i]n deciding whether the plaintiff's complaint presents a justiciable claim, we make no determination regarding its merits"); see also Nielsen v. State , 236 Conn. 1, 6, 670 A.2d 1288 (1996). We therefore conclude that the claim raised in the defendant's motion to open was not moot but, rather, was a recognizable claim in equity and that, as a result, the Appellate Court improperly dismissed the defendant's appeal.

  7. Jobe v. Comm'r of Corr.

    334 Conn. 636 (Conn. 2020)   Cited 19 times
    Observing that "the primary responsibility for formulating public policy must remain with the legislature"

    Because "the record establishes the reason for the [petitioner's] deportation," and "there is a reasonable possibility of prejudicial collateral consequences" from the expired state conviction, namely, the denial of readmission to the United States under the IIRIRA, we conclude that the appeal is not moot. State v. Jerzy G. , 326 Conn. 206, 223, 162 A.3d 692 (2017) ; see also St. Juste v. Commissioner of Correction , 328 Conn. 198, 218, 177 A.3d 1144 (2018) (holding that appeal from denial of petition for writ of habeas corpus was not moot, despite petitioner's subsequent deportation, because challenged conviction gave "rise to a reasonable possibility of prejudicial collateral consequences—namely, his deportation and a barrier to reentry"). As we previously explained, "because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary."

  8. Clue v. Comm'r of Corr.

    223 Conn. App. 803 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    This important function of the writ of habeas corpus is not lost where, as here, the petitioner is released from custody during the pendency of his habeas petition and is residing in another country when there remains "a reasonable possibility of prejudicial collateral consequences should [he] seek to lawfully reenter the United States" following his deportation. State v. Jerzy G., 326 Conn. 206, 223, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). [10–12] For those reasons, a habeas petitioner, unlike a typical civil litigant, has a "statutory right to habeas counsel pursuant to General Statutes § 51-296, which provides for the appointment of counsel for an indigent person in any habeas corpus proceeding arising from a criminal 823matter …’"

  9. DXR Fin. Parent v. Theraplant, LLC

    223 Conn. App. 362 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024)   Cited 4 times

    [13]373"[I]f a favorable decision necessarily could not afford the practical relief sought, the case is moot." State v. Jerzy G., 326 Conn. 206, 221, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). As it applies to the denial of a motion to intervene, this court has observed that "[m]ost postjudgment appeals filed by would-be intervenors will be moot because the relief sought, i.e., intervention into the underlying action, cannot be granted once the action has gone to judgment."

  10. State v. Fletcher

    183 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. Ct. 2018)   Cited 4 times

    ‘‘Under such circumstances, the court would merely be rendering an advisory opinion, instead of adjudicating an actual, justiciable controversy.’’ State v. Jerzy G ., 326 Conn. 206, 213, 162 A.3d 692 (2017). ‘‘Because courts are established to resolve actual controversies, before a claimed controversy is entitled to a resolution on the merits it must be justiciable.... Justiciability requires (1) that there be an actual controversy between or among the parties to the dispute ... (2) that the interests of the parties be adverse ... (3) that the matter in controversy be capable of being adjudicated by judicial power ... and (4) that the determination of the controversy will result in practical relief to the complainant.