February 15, 2018
for a writ of habeas corpus, brought to the Superior Court in
the judicial district of Tolland and tried to the court,
Oliver, J.; judgment dismissing the petition, from
which the petitioner, on the granting of certification,
appealed to this court. Affirmed.
K. Garg, for the appellant (petitioner).
Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, with whom,
on the brief, was Matthew C. Gedansky, state's attorney,
for the appellee (respondent).
Lavine, Bright and Pellegrino, Js.
Statutes § 52-466 (a) (1) provides in relevant part that
‘‘[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus,
other than an application pursuant to subdivision (2) of this
subsection, shall be made to the superior court, or to a
judge thereof, for the judicial district in which the person
whose custody is in question is claimed to be illegally
confined or deprived of such person's
liberty.'' (Emphasis added.) Our Supreme Court has
concluded ‘‘that the custody requirement of
§ 52-466 is jurisdictional because the history and
purpose of the writ of habeas corpus establish that the
habeas court lacks the power to act on a habeas petition
absent the petitioner's allegedly unlawful
custody.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
Richardson v. Commissioner of Correction, 298 Conn.
690, 697, 6 A.3d 52 (2010).
petitioner, Momodou Lamin Jobe, appeals from the judgment of
the habeas court dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus,  following the court's granting his
petition for certification to appeal. On appeal, the
petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly determined
that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of his
claim under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130
S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010). The respondent, the
Commissioner of Correction, concedes that the habeas court
improperly dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to Padilla, but contends that the judgment
of dismissal may be affirmed on the alternate ground that the
petitioner failed to allege that he was in custody at the
time he filed his petition. We affirm the judgment of
dismissal on the basis of the respondent's alternate
court lacks discretion to consider the merits of a case over
which it is without jurisdiction . . . . The subject matter
jurisdiction requirement may not be waived by any party, and
also may be raised by a party, or by the court sua sponte, at
any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal.''
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Ajadi v. Commissioner
of Correction, 280 Conn. 514, 533, 911 A.2d 712 (2006).
The determination of whether the habeas court had subject
matter jurisdiction is a question of law and this court's
review is plenary. Richardson v. Commissioner of
Correction, supra, 298 Conn. 696.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the petitioner alleged
that he was arrested on September 10, 2009, and that he
pleaded guilty to the crimes charged on January 5,
2010. He also alleged that on January 5, 2010,
he received a total effective sentence of eleven months
incarceration, execution suspended, and two years of
conditional discharge. The petitioner filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus on August 12, 2016. The petition,
therefore, was filed more than two years after he was
sentenced and was not in custody at that time.
oral argument, counsel for the petitioner acknowledged that
the only way the petitioner could have been in custody at the
time that he filed his petition was if a warrant had been
issued for violation of his conditional discharge. Counsel
conceded that absent such a warrant, the habeas court would
not have subject matter jurisdiction over his petition. We
asked counsel for the parties if they knew whether a warrant
had been issued for the petitioner for violation of his
conditional discharge. Following oral argument, counsel for
the parties signed and submitted a letter to the court
stating that they had searched relevant bases of information
and found no evidence that a warrant had been issued for the
petitioner for violation of his conditional discharge. The
petitioner, as his counsel conceded, was not in custody
pursuant to § 52-466 (a) (1) at the time he filed his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The habeas court,
therefore, lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.