Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 54-1j
(P.A. 82-177; P.A. 97-256, S. 6; P.A. 03-81, S. 1.)
Court found that the time limit for filing motion was procedural in nature and therefore could be applied retroactively. 251 C. 617. Warning of deportation and denial was substantial compliance with provisions of statute since defendant was warned guilty plea implicates immigration status. 257 C. 653. Court need only inform defendant of potential deportation consequences rather than engaging defendant in a manner to ensure full understanding. 62 CA 805. Section is in place only to call defendant’s attention to potential immigration consequences under federal law, not to inform defendant of every possible consequence of a plea. 68 CA 499. Court’s inquiry of defense counsel as to whether there were any immigration issues and whether counsel talked to defendant about possible consequences of pleas cannot be construed as substantial compliance with requirements of Subsec. (a). 120 CA 489; judgment reversed, see 303 C. 527. Subsec. (a): Court properly relied upon representations by defense counsel that defendant understood immigration consequences of guilty plea and court was not required to address defendant personally; substantial compliance with section is sufficient. 303 Conn. 527. Trial court is not required to inquire directly of a defendant as to whether he or she spoke with his or her counsel about the possible immigration consequences of pleading guilty before the court accepts the defendant’s guilty plea. 325 C. 623. Subsec. is plain and unambiguous, and requires that court address defendant personally and determine that defendant fully understands that immigration consequences may flow from entering a plea if a noncitizen, and court is only required to provide defendant an opportunity to discuss with defense counsel the possible immigration consequences of entering a plea if the court is made aware that defendant has not discussed those immigration consequences with defense counsel. 139 CA 308. Trial court erred in finding that canvas of defendant substantially complied with Subsec. because trial court simply advised defendant that his conviction could result in his removal or deportation from United States, it did not ask defendant nor did it make a determination that defendant understood potential immigration consequences of his guilty plea before he entered it. 180 CA 48. Subsec. (c): Under 1999 revision, court does not have jurisdiction to hear motion filed outside of 3-year period. 306 C. 125.