State v. Baker
141 Conn. App. 669
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant James Baker pled guilty (Alford) to possession of a weapon in a correctional institution under § 53a-174a.
- Plea agreement provided an 18-month sentence to be served consecutive to his murder-conviction sentence.
- Court canvassed Baker; defense counsel declined to speak.
- Sentencing followed the plea agreement and was imposed as 18 months consecutive to current sentence.
- Baker later moved to correct an illegal sentence (9/19/2011), claiming denial of a allocution opportunity.
- Trial court denied the motion after oral argument, prompting this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had a duty to inquire about allocution at sentencing | Baker argues Valedon requires inquiry; failure to do so was harmful | State contends no affirmative duty to inquire under §43-10(3) | No affirmative duty to inquire; inquiry not required by statute |
| Whether denial of allocution rights was reversible error given plea agreement | Baker asserts harm from missing allocution opportunity | State argues no harm given plea deal and counsel declined | Not reversible; agreement and record show no abuse |
| Standard of review for denial of motion to correct an illegal sentence | Baker relies on abuse-of-discretion review | State maintains standard as applied | Review is abuse of discretion; deference to trial court preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Charles F., 133 Conn. App. 698 (Conn. App. 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for illegal-sentence rulings)
- State v. Strickland, 243 Conn. 339 (Conn. 1997) (applies Practice Book § 43-10(3) to sentencing and probation-dispositional phase)
- State v. Valedon, 261 Conn. 381 (Conn. 2002) (§ 43-10(3) does not require personal address to defendant for speaking)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (recognizes guilty-plea rationale and plea-bargain context)