187 Conn. App. 569
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Francis Anderson was an insanity acquittee committed to the Psychiatric Security Review Board and confined at Whiting Forensic Division after earlier proceedings; he also had an unrelated 2008 prison sentence with an August 5, 2017 release date.
- While confined at Whiting he committed new assaults on staff/patients, was charged, set a $100,000 bond, could not post it, and was transferred to DOC custody as a pretrial detainee.
- After a court trial on the Whiting incidents, the trial court convicted Anderson of second‑degree assault and reckless endangerment and sentenced him to seven years (suspended after 5.5) to run consecutively to his 2008 sentence, ordering immediate remand to DOC rather than return to Whiting.
- Anderson filed a Practice Book § 43-22 motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing (1) the court lacked authority to remand him to DOC instead of returning him to Whiting, and (2) he was entitled to presentence/jail credit for the time he spent in DOC as a pretrial detainee (about 11 months) to be applied to the consecutive sentence.
- The trial court denied the motion (finding remand appropriate for safety reasons and that Anderson failed to show mental disease at time of the offenses) and dismissed the pretrial‑credit claim for lack of jurisdiction under § 43-22.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: even assuming remand to DOC was erroneous, Anderson already received credit toward the 2008 sentence for the contested period and cannot double‑count that same time toward a consecutive sentence; the presentence‑credit claim fell outside the narrow scope of § 43-22 and was properly dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Anderson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court illegally ordered immediate remand to DOC rather than return to Whiting after imposing a consecutive sentence | Trial court lacked authority to remand him to DOC and he should have been returned to Whiting to finish the 2008 commitment; remand altered an earlier judgment | Court properly ordered remand because Whiting was unsafe given his violent conduct and court balanced treatment needs and victims’ safety | Affirmed: even if remand were wrong, Anderson already received credit to the 2008 sentence for that period and cannot get the same time credited again to a consecutive sentence |
| Whether Anderson was entitled to double credit (presentence credit) for time spent in DOC as a pretrial detainee toward the consecutive sentence | He should receive credit for all time in DOC pretrial custody toward the September 12, 2016 consecutive sentence (advance release by ~11 months) | A defendant cannot receive duplicate credit for the same period toward two nonconcurrent sentences; statutory and DOC calculations control | Denied: double credit not permitted; credit already applied to the 2008 sentence, not re‑applied to the consecutive sentence |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction under Practice Book § 43-22 to grant presentence/jail credit and revise the mittimus | § 43-22 provides a vehicle to correct the sentence calculation and implement pretrial credits | § 43-22 is narrow and applies only to defects arising from the sentencing proceeding itself; DOC’s calculation of credit is not a sentencing‑proceeding action | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: claim concerns DOC’s calculation, not a sentencing error under § 43-22 |
| Standard of review for motion to correct an illegal sentence | (N/A—procedural) | Court should review whether claim falls within § 43-22; abuse of discretion standard applies to denial | Motion‑scope is a question of law (plenary); denial reviewed for abuse of discretion — appellate court found no abuse |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 456 (Conn. 2013) (background on defendant’s earlier convictions and sentence)
- State v. Anderson, 319 Conn. 288 (Conn. 2015) (discussion of bond, transfer to DOC, and court’s authority re: insanity acquittees)
- State v. Jason B., 176 Conn. App. 236 (Conn. App. 2017) (§ 43-22 subject‑matter jurisdiction and requirement that sentencing proceeding be target of attack)
- Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165 (Conn. 2009) (limits of § 43-22 and sentencing‑proceeding requirement for post‑execution correction)
- State v. Montanez, 149 Conn. App. 32 (Conn. App. 2014) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction where claim concerned DOC calculation rather than sentencing proceeding)
- State v. Lugojanu, 184 Conn. App. 576 (Conn. App. 2018) (plenary review for whether motion falls within § 43-22)