State v. Allan, 329 Conn. 815

Defendant Nemiah Allan was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to sell narcotics (§ 21a-278(b)) and interfering with an officer; no evidence or jury instruction addressed his drug dependency.
At sentencing the defense argued Allan was a "career addict"; the court imposed an effective 12-year sentence plus five years special parole. Conviction was previously affirmed on direct appeal.
Allan filed a Practice Book § 43-22 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing mandatory minimums under § 21a-278(b) were triggered by drug dependency findings not made by the jury or admitted by him, invoking Alleyne and Apprendi.
Trial court denied the motion relying on State v. Ray, which treats drug dependency under § 21a-278(b) as an affirmative defense the defendant must prove, not an element for the state to prove.
On appeal Allan asked this court to overrule Ray (statutory interpretation and Alleyne grounds) and also challenged the statutory scheme as violating Connecticut separation of powers by giving prosecutors sole discretion to proceed under § 21a-278(b) rather than § 21a-277(a).
The Supreme Court treated the issues as identical to those in State v. Evans, adopted that reasoning, held the trial court had jurisdiction over the motion, and affirmed the denial of the motion to correct the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ray should be overruled because Alleyne renders Ray invalid	State: Ray remains controlling; defendant’s motion fails	Allan: Alleyne and Apprendi require jury find facts increasing mandatory minima; thus Ray is invalid	Court: Declined to overrule Ray; Alleyne/Apprendi do not mandate relief here
Whether drug dependency under § 21a-278(b) is an element or an affirmative defense	State: Dependency is an affirmative defense to be proven by defendant (Ray)	Allan: Dependency is a fact that increases mandatory minimum and must be found by jury	Court: Affirms Ray: dependency is affirmative defense for defendant to prove
Separation of powers challenge to prosecutor’s discretion to elect § 21a-278(b) vs § 21a-277(a)	State: Statutory scheme is constitutional; prosecutor’s charging choices permissible	Allan: Scheme improperly delegates judicial sentencing choices to prosecutor, violating CT constitution	Court: Rejected separation of powers challenge; no basis to overturn conviction/sentence
Jurisdiction to hear motion to correct illegal sentence	State: Motion fails to raise colorable claim; trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction	Allan: Motion presented constitutional and Alleyne-based claims warranting review	Court: Trial court had jurisdiction, but claims lacked merit; denial affirmed

State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770, 189 A.3d 1184 (Conn. 2018) (companion opinion resolving identical issues and adopted here)
State v. Ray, 290 Conn. 602, 966 A.2d 148 (Conn. 2009) (interprets § 21a-278(b) to render drug dependency an affirmative defense)
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimum must be submitted to jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
State v. Drakes, 321 Conn. 857, 146 A.3d 21 (Conn. 2016) (precedent cited for adopting reasoning from related cases)
State v. Allan, 311 Conn. 1, 83 A.3d 326 (Conn. 2014) (prior affirmance of defendant’s conviction referenced in procedural history)