************************************************

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 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 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 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 

an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal 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, Newson, 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 relevant to our disposition of this appeal. On or about September 21, 2017, the petitioner was arrested in connection 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 jurisdiction. The court stated that the petitioner could have

raised his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel 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 consequences 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 applicable 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 commonlaw 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 situation 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 circumstances 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 immigration 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 Stephenson 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

2 In light of this conclusion, we do not reach the state’s alternative ground

for affirmance, pursuant to which it argues that the court also lacked jurisdiction 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 invitation 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 adequate 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.