In re Siddiqui

Syllabus

The petitioner filed a motion seeking the cancellation of an unserved arrest warrant pursuant to the rule of practice (§ 36-6) that governs the cancel- lation of arrest warrants. The trial court denied the petitioner's motion for cancellation on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion. Thereafter, the trial court denied two motions to reargue filed by the petitioner, and the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. Contrary to the state's claim, this court had jurisdiction over the petition- er's appeal; the trial court's denial of the petitioner's motion for cancella- tion of the arrest warrant terminated a separate and distinct proceeding, and, therefore, it satisfied the first prong of the test set forth in State v. Curcio (191 Conn. 27) that governs when an interlocutory ruling is appealable. 2. The trial court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petitioner's motion for cancellation of the arrest warrant: because there was no pending criminal case before the trial court and the plain language of Practice Book § 36-6 provides that only the prosecuting authority and the judicial authority may act to cancel an arrest warrant and does not set forth an avenue for the petitioner to seek cancellation of the unserved arrest warrant, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the petitioner's motion for cancellation; moreover, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, it should have dismissed the motion rather than denied it, and, therefore this court concluded that the form of the judgment was improper, reversed the judgment and remanded the case with direction to dismiss the motion. Argued October 10, 2019—officially released February 11, 2020