****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. All opinions are subjectto modification andtechnical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut LawJournal andboundvolumes 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.

******************************************************STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MIGUEL WILLIAMSON (AC 36451)
Alvord, Keller and Harper, Js. Argued December 1, 2014—officially released January 27, 2015 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, geographical area number fourteen,

Bentivegna, J.)
Thomas S. Rome, for the appellant (defendant).
Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state’s attorney, and Mark Brodsky, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).Opinion KELLER, J. The defendant, Miguel Williamson, appeals from thejudgment ofthe trial court dismissing his petition for a writ of error coram nobis. He claims thatthe courtimproperly concludedthatitlackedjurisdiction overthe petition. We affirm thejudgment ofthe trial court.
The following undisputed facts appear in the record. On August 15, 2012, the defendant pleaded guilty to possession ofmarijuana with the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (b). The court canvassed the defendant, accepted his plea, and sentenced himto aterm ofincarceration ofsevenyears, execution suspended after eighteen months, followed by three years of probation. On August 13, 2013, seven days before he began to serve the probationary portion of his sentence, the defendant filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, in which he alleged, inter alia, that, in connection with his guilty plea, he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel and that, consequently, he lacked knowledge ofthe nature ofthe charge. On this ground, he requested that thejudgment of conviction ‘‘be reopened and voided’’ and that he ‘‘be given a new opportunity to reach ajust resolution to his case.’’ Additionally, the defendant alleged that he
was unaware of any other adequate remedy at law.
The state objected to the petition on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction because the defendant, who began serving the probationary portion ofhis sentence on August 20, 2013, had an adequate remedy at law, namely, the right to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The defendant filed a written response in which he representedthat, uponthe commencement ofhis probation, he was no longer in the custody ofthe state, butwas currentlyinafacilityinMassachusetts, in the custody ofthe United States Bureau ofImmigration and Customs Enforcement, while proceedings to
remove him from the United States were underway. Further, the defendant stated that, in these circumstances, hisabilitytopetitionforawritofhabeascorpus
wasnotanadequateremedybecauseitwouldnotafford him‘‘anyrelieffromremoval.’’Inasupplementalmemorandum oflaw in support ofhis petition, the defendant represented that, on November 22, 2013, the United States Immigration Court ordered that he be deported from the United States. The defendant asserted that, under these circumstances in which he was awaiting deportation, the writ oferror coram nobis was his only adequate remedy.
On December 19, 2013, the court held a hearing relatedto thejurisdictional issue, during which it heard argumentsfrombothpartiesinthiscase. Initsdecision,1 the court set forth the relevant and undisputed facts, and dismissed the petition for a writ of error coramnobis after concluding as a matter oflaw that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The court determined that the defendant, who was serving a period of probation, had an adequate remedy at law because he had the ability to petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This appeal followed. Reiterating in substance the arguments he advanced before the trial court, the defendant relies on the fact that, at the time that the court dismissed his petition, he was no longer in the physical custody of the state, but was serving his probation while in federal custody and awaiting deportation fromthe United States.2 Without stating that he had the right to petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he asserts that such legal remedy
was inadequate givenhis circumstances because ‘‘there is no reasonable and practical prospect fortimely adjudication of a prisoner’s application for a habeas writ when the prisoner faces immediate forced removal by [the United States Department ofHomeland Security].’’ Underlying the defendant’s argument is his belief that, in contrast with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
a petition for a writ of error coram nobis is the only
means of providing practical relief to him in a timely
manner so as to thwart his deportation, which was a consequence of his conviction.3 The state urges us to agree with the trial court that dismissal was proper because the defendant had other legal remedies by which to seek redress, such as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Alternatively, the state urges us to conclude that dismissal was proper because, ifthe writ oferror coram nobis existed in the common law, it has been supplanted by other remedies in Connecticut law and therefore is no longer a viable remedy.4
‘‘Adeterminationregardingatrialcourt’ssubjectmatterjurisdiction is a question of law and, therefore, we employ the plenary standard of review and decide whetherthe court’s conclusionsarelegallyandlogically correct and supported by the facts in the record.

. . . [I]t is well established that a reviewing court properly may address jurisdictional claims that neither were raised nor ruled on in the trial court. Indeed, [o]nce the question of lack of jurisdiction of a court is raised, [it] must be disposed of no matter in what form it is presented.

. . . The court must fully resolve it before proceeding further with the case.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Warner v. Bicknell, 126 Conn. App. 588, 594, 12 A.3d 1042 (2011). ‘‘Jurisdictioninvolvesthepowerinacourttohearanddetermine the cause ofaction presented to it and its source is the constitutional and statutory provisions by which it is created.

. . . Article fifth, § 1 of the Connecticut constitutionproclaims that [t]he powers andjurisdiction of the courts shallbe definedbylaw, and General Statutes § 51-164s provides that [t]he superior court shall be the sole court of original jurisdiction for all causes of actions, except such actions over which the courts ofprobate have original jurisdiction, as provided by statute.

. . . The Superior Court is a constitutional court ofgeneraljurisdiction.

. . . In the absence of statutory
orconstitutionalprovisions, the limits ofitsjurisdiction
are delineatedbythe common law.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147, 153, 913 A.2d 428 (2007).
‘‘A writ of error coram nobis is an ancient commonlaw remedy which authorized the trial judge, within three years, to vacate the judgment of the same court if the party aggrieved by the judgment could present facts, not appearing in the record, which, iftrue, would show that such judgment was void or voidable.

. . . The facts must be unknown at the time of the trial without fault ofthe party seeking relief.

. . . A writ of
error coram nobis lies only in the unusual situation [in which] 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.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356, 370–71, 968 A.2d 367 (2009); see also State v. Henderson, 259 Conn. 1, 3, 787 A.2d 514 (2002) (writ of error coram nobis unavailable when proper remedy afforded by means of writ of habeas corpus); State v. Grisgraber, 183 Conn. 383, 385, 439 A.2d 377 (1981) (writ oferror coram nobis unavailable when proper remedy afforded by means of appeal).
To the extent that the defendant argues that he was unable to petition for a writ of habeas corpus because he had completedhis definite term ofincarceration and
was serving the probationary portion of his sentence, this argument is legally unsound. Recently, this court rejected a similar argument, concluding that probation constituted a form of legal restraint that satisfied the custody requirement of General Statutes § 52-466. See State v. Stephenson, 154 Conn. App. 587, 588, A.3d (2015) (reversing judgment denying petition for writ of error coram nobis and remanding case with directiontodismisspetitionbecause defendantserving probation had ability to obtain reliefby way ofpetition forwrit ofhabeas corpus). Neitherthe defendant’s probationary status nor his federal detention impeded his ability to petition for a writ of habeas corpus and, thereby, to raise a claim related to the representation afforded him by his trial counsel in connection with his guilty plea.
To the extent that the defendant argues that awrit of habeas corpus would afford him a ‘‘nominal, technical, theoretical, or‘academic’remedy,’’becauseitwouldnot provide him with timely relief, we are not persuaded. Before the trial court, the defendant argued that the writ oferrorcoramnobiswasthe onlyavailable remedy because the relief he could obtain in connection with
a writ of habeas corpus would not occur in time toprevent his deportation. He argued that even if he obtained relief in the form of a new trial, ‘‘there is no conceivablechance, practicallyspeaking, that [his] case could be reopened in time to forestall or vacate his federal removal order.’’ In terms of timeliness, we observe that, although he was convicted on August 15, 2012, he did not file the present petition until August 13, 2013, seven daysbefore hebeganto serve theprobationaryportion ofhis sentence. The defendant filed the petition at issue approximately three months prior to the time atwhichhe receivedhis final order ofdeportation on November 22, 2013, a fact that substantially weakens the force ofhis argumentthatthe writ oferror
coram nobis, rather than a writ of habeas corpus, was
a necessary remedy in light of the immediacy of his removal. Additionally, beyond stating his subjective beliefthat
apetitionforawrit ofhabeas corpus wouldnotprovide him with timely relief, the defendant did not present any evidence in this regard before the trial court. As the state correctly observes, inthe context ofapetition for a writ of habeas corpus, the defendant could have requested that the habeas court adjudicate the matter expeditiously. This fact helps to allay reasonable concerns related to timeliness.5 In support ofthis observation, the state aptly has cited in its brief numerous examples of habeas court decisions in which such courts have adjudicated petitions for writs of habeas corpus in an expedited manner because they involved the rights of petitioners who, like the defendant in the present case, were facing issues related to deportation. Moreover, the defendant has not cited any legal authority that stands for the proposition that, in the present circumstances, inwhich deportationwas imminent, the writ ofhabeas corpus is not an adequate legal remedy. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the court properly dismissed the petition for a writ of error
coram nobis.
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 The court delivered its decision orally at the conclusion of the hearing, but later created a signed transcript of its decision in compliance with Practice Book § 64-1 (a).

2 In his brief to this court, the defendant represents that an appeal from the decision of the United States Immigration Court is pending and that he ispresentlyincarceratedundertheauthorityoftheUnitedStatesDepartment of Homeland Security at a facility in Alabama.

3 The defendant argues: ‘‘Were a writ of error coram nobis be allowed,

on remand, for the instant case, a hearing in Superior Court on all factual issues presented by [the defendant’s] circumstances could likely be scheduled within weeks, at worst. This is not so for an application for a writ of habeas corpus: scheduling delays are well-known to practitioners and judges alike.’’

4 Because we conclude that dismissal ofthe petition was proper because there was at least one other remedy available to the defendant, we do not reach the state’s alternative argument in which it calls into question the viability of the writ of error coram nobis. See also State v. Stephenson, 154 Conn. App. 587, 590 n.4, A.3d (2015) (upholding dismissal ofpetition for writ of error coram nobis because ‘‘even if the [writ of error coramnobis] does exist, the prerequisites for granting reliefwere not met’’); State

v. Carter, 142 Conn. App. 156, 161 n.5, 64 A.3d 366 (2013) (‘‘[a]ssuming that the writ oferror coram nobis exists, we conclude that the court lacked jurisdiction over the petitions at issue herein’’ [emphasis in original]).

5 There is nothing in the record to suggest that the defendant has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus related to the issue set forth in the present petition.