130 Conn. App. 652
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- On August 14, 2003, Alegrand pleaded nolo contendere to robbery in the third degree and was sentenced to five years with two years to serve and two years of conditional discharge.
- On November 25, 2008, Alegrand filed a motion for relief from judgment and sentence seeking various relief including vacating the plea and dismissing charges.
- Alegrand premised jurisdiction on two common-law vehicles: an independent action in equity and a writ of audita querela.
- Handy, J. ruled in April 2009 that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the motion as an independent action in equity and as audita querela, and declined to exercise supervisory powers.
- The trial court did not provide a statutory or constitutional basis for continuing jurisdiction over a criminal judgment post-sentence, and emphasized interests in finality of judgments.
- Alegrand appealed, contending the court erred in its jurisdictional rulings and, alternatively, that supervisory powers could reach the merits of his constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear an independent action in equity. | Alegrand | Alegrand | Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain independent equity relief |
| Whether the court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear a writ of audita querela. | Alegrand | Alegrand | Audita querela not available; no jurisdiction to vacate a criminal conviction post-sentencing |
| Whether the appellate court should exercise supervisory powers to review the merits despite lack of trial court jurisdiction. | Alegrand | Alegrand | Supervisory powers not invoked; no rare circumstances warranting review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 ((2007)) (no continuing jurisdiction to modify judgment absent express authorization)
- State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356 ((2009)) (limits on post-sentence relief; lack of jurisdiction to withdraw plea announced)
- State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487 ((2001)) (finality interests; limitations on post-judgment relief)
- State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764 ((2006)) (supervisory power review; immigration consequences context)
- Folwell v. Howell, 117 Conn. 565 ((1933)) (equitable relief grounded on fraud or unfairness)
- McConnell v. Beverly Enters.-Connecticut, Inc., 209 Conn. 692 ((1989)) (independent equitable actions before Superior Court; general equity jurisdiction)
- Hoey v. Investors' Mortgage & Guaranty Co., 118 Conn. 226 ((1934)) (equitable relief from civil judgment when need is conscience-based and remedy at law is lacking)
- Allis v. Hall, 76 Conn. 322 ((1904)) (grounds for equitable interference include fraud, mistake, surprise, ignorance)
- Lashgari v. Lashgari, 197 Conn. 189 ((1985)) (audita querela historically characterized as legal remedy)
- Oakland Heights Mobile Park, Inc. v. Simon, 40 Conn. App. 30 ((1995)) (audita querela as remedy in civil judgments; caution against endless collateral attacks)