186 Conn. App. 84
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- On Aug. 18, 2016 a substitute information charged Anthony Adams with felony murder, attempted first‑degree robbery, and two counts of hindering prosecution in the second degree; Adams pleaded guilty only to the two hindering counts.
- Under the plea the court imposed consecutive terms of 7.5 years (execution suspended after 5) plus 5 years probation on each count, yielding an effective sentence of 15 years incarceration (execution suspended after 10) with five years probation.
- Adams filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming (1) double jeopardy because both hindering counts derived from a single phone call, and (2) his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum because probation should be added to the definite term.
- Adams also filed a motion for procedural default asserting the state’s failure to file a written response waived opposition; and he later alleged judicial bias at the hearing.
- The trial court denied the motions; Adams appealed. The appellate court affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Adams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy from conviction on two hindering counts | Guilty plea waived nonjurisdictional defects; charging document showed no facial double jeopardy violation | Single act (one phone call) cannot support convictions for assisting two different felons | Waived: plea admissions relinquished the claim; charging documents showed no facial violation, so claim foreclosed |
| Sentence exceeded statutory maximum | Sentence complied with statutory maximums for imprisonment and for probation; probation is not part of the maximum definite term | Probation must be added to imprisonment to calculate maximum, so combined term exceeded statutory limit | Denied: incarceration terms and probation separately fall within statutory maxima; probation not included in §53a‑35a maximum calculation |
| Procedural default for state’s failure to file written response | No requirement that state file a written response to a motion to correct an illegal sentence; Practice Book §66‑2 governs appellate practice only | State’s failure to file a written response constituted waiver/default permitting unopposed relief | Denied: no rule or caselaw required a written response in this criminal post‑sentence context; §66‑2 is inapplicable |
| Judicial bias based on court’s responses at hearing | (State) not applicable — court argues it acted properly | Court acted as prosecutorial advocate and exhibited bias through explanations and interventions | Denied: claim was unpreserved; plain‑error not raised; record shows court corrected appellant’s legal errors in a measured manner and did not demonstrate bias |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (double jeopardy applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment)
- United States v. Broce, 488 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1989) (guilty plea admits commission of charged offenses and generally waives nonjurisdictional challenges including non‑apparent double jeopardy)
- State v. Madera, 198 Conn. 92 (Conn. 1985) (an intelligent, voluntary guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (Conn. 2007) (motion to correct an illegal sentence is proper vehicle to raise excess‑sentence claims)
- State v. Lugojanu, 184 Conn. App. 576 (Conn. App. 2018) (period of probation is not added to a definite term of imprisonment when calculating statutory maximum under §53a‑35a)
- State v. Holmes, 182 Conn. App. 124 (Conn. App. 2018) (Practice Book §66‑2 applies to appellate motions practice and not to motions to correct an illegal sentence)
- State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23 (Conn. 2001) (trial court commenting on evidence or law to clarify proceedings does not necessarily indicate bias)