179 Conn. App. 668
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Defendant Antwon W. was convicted by a jury of six counts of first‑degree sexual assault (three under § 53a‑70(a)(1) and three under § 53a‑70(a)(2)), plus related charges; sentenced to three consecutive mandatory five‑year terms for the (a)(1) counts (15 years total) with the (a)(2) sentences ordered concurrent to their corresponding (a)(1) counts.
- A presentence investigation report (PSI) and prosecutor statements summarized the jury verdicts and underlying facts for all six counts.
- On the defendant’s first motion to correct an illegal sentence, the trial court vacated the three convictions and concurrent sentences under § 53a‑70(a)(2) on double jeopardy grounds, leaving the three (a)(1) convictions and their consecutive mandatory sentences intact.
- The defendant filed a second motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the original sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information (the subsequently vacated (a)(2) convictions and related PSI/prosecutor statements), requiring resentencing.
- The trial court dismissed the second motion, finding the sentencing court did not rely on the vacated charges in imposing the (a)(1) mandatory sentences. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information such that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner | State: sentencing court did not rely on vacated convictions; it imposed mandatory (a)(1) terms and ran (a)(2) terms concurrent, indicating no enhancement from vacated counts | Antwon: PSI and prosecutor repeatedly referenced the now‑vacated (a)(2) convictions; those inaccuracies were used at sentencing so resentencing is required | Court held defendant failed to show material inaccuracy or judicial reliance; sentencing court treated (a)(1) and (a)(2) convictions separately and did not enhance (a)(1) sentences based on (a)(2) counts; no abuse of discretion in denying relief |
| Whether vacatur of (a)(2) convictions rendered PSI/prosecutor statements inaccurate and therefore made the original sentence illegal | State: vacatur was on double jeopardy grounds, not for insufficient evidence; factual statements underlying jury verdicts remain accurate | Antwon: vacatur means related statements were inappropriate and rendered information inaccurate for sentencing | Court held vacatur did not make the factual information inaccurate and did not demonstrate that the judge relied on those statements to impose (a)(1) sentences |
| Proper form of disposition when motion to correct an illegal sentence is rejected on the merits | State: dismissal was acceptable | Antwon: dismissal improper; motion should be denied on merits | Court held the motion properly invoked jurisdiction and, having been decided on merits, should have been denied (not dismissed); remanded to render denial rather than dismissal |
| Standard of review for denial of motion to correct illegal sentence | State: trial court’s factual finding entitled to deference | Antwon: contends appellate review should correct error | Court applied abuse of discretion standard and concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jason B., 176 Conn. App. 236 (Conn. App. 2017) (defines distinction between illegal sentence and sentence imposed in an illegal manner)
- State v. Bozelko, 175 Conn. App. 599 (Conn. App. 2017) (a defendant must show information was materially inaccurate and that the court relied on it)
- State v. Charles F., 133 Conn. App. 698 (Conn. App. 2012) (claim that sentencing court relied on inaccurate information falls within Superior Court common‑law jurisdiction)