Ajadi v. Commissioner of Correction, 280 Conn. 514

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed the dismissal of Rafiu Abimbola Ajadi’s habeas petition challenging criminal convictions on ineffective-assistance and related grounds. The court held that the habeas judge’s failure to disqualify himself, despite having previously represented Ajadi in one of the underlying matters, constituted plain error, but concluded that the judgment was voidable rather than void. The court independently determined that Ajadi was not in custody when the petition was filed and therefore that the habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction; his alternative coram nobis claim was unpreserved.

Holdings

1. A habeas judge who previously served as the petitioner's lawyer in connection with a conviction challenged in the habeas proceeding must disqualify himself under Canon 3(c)(1)(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Practice Book § 1-22(a). The judge's failure to do so constituted plain error because a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality.
2. The parties did not consent in open court to the disqualified judge's participation because neither Ajadi nor his counsel knew, or had reason to know, of the judge's prior representation until after the habeas proceedings had concluded.
3. The habeas court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Ajadi was not in custody on his fully expired Stamford and Norwalk convictions when he filed his petition. The collateral consequence of deportation proceedings did not satisfy the custody requirement of General Statutes § 52-466.
4. Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss did not provide a basis for custody jurisdiction because Ajadi directly challenged his expired convictions rather than a current sentence enhanced by those convictions.
5. The court declined to review Ajadi's claim that his habeas petition should have been construed as a writ of error coram nobis because the claim was not raised in the habeas court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the habeas judge's failure to disqualify himself after previously representing Ajadi in connection with an underlying conviction constituted plain error.
2. Whether the habeas court had subject matter jurisdiction under General Statutes § 52-466 when Ajadi's sentences on the challenged convictions had fully expired before he filed the habeas petition, despite ongoing immigration detention and removal proceedings.
3. Whether the habeas court should have construed Ajadi's habeas petition as a writ of error coram nobis.
4. Whether the parties' failure to object before or during the habeas proceedings constituted consent to the judge's participation under General Statutes § 51-39(c).

Disposition

affirmed