midpage
192 Conn.App. 128
Conn. App. Ct.
2019
Read the full case

Background

  • Defendant Reggie Battle pleaded guilty in 2005 to conspiracy to commit assault (sentenced to 20 years, execution suspended after 9, and five years probation) and later admitted a probation violation in 2014 while also pleading guilty to pistol offenses. Judge Alexander revoked probation and sentenced him to five years incarceration plus six years of special parole (with concurrent sentences on firearm counts).
  • In 2016 Battle filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence (Practice Book §43-22), arguing special parole cannot be imposed following a probation violation because §54-125e applies only to convictions and §53a-32(d) does not authorize special parole on revocation.
  • The trial court (Judge Dewey) concluded it lacked jurisdiction under §43-22 to entertain the motion, but nonetheless reached the merits and rejected Battle’s statutory argument, holding special parole was authorized; it dismissed the motion.
  • Battle appealed, arguing (1) the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the §43-22 motion, (2) special parole after probation revocation is an illegal sentence, and (3) he was denied due process because the sentencing judge (Judge Alexander) did not decide the motion.
  • The Appellate Court held the trial court did have jurisdiction to consider the motion, rejected Battle’s statutory challenge to special parole on revocation, and rejected the due process claim; it reversed the dismissal and directed the trial court to render judgment denying the motion.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (State) Defendant's Argument (Battle) Held
Jurisdiction to consider §43-22 motion Court may correct illegal sentences; motion targets sentence legality so trial court has jurisdiction §43-22 is limited; trial court below said it lacked jurisdiction Appellate Court: Battle raised a colorable §43-22 claim focused on the sentence, so trial court had jurisdiction; dismissal was improper
Legality of imposing special parole after probation revocation Special parole is an available sentencing option and may be part of a "lesser sentence" under §53a-32(d)(4) §54-125e applies only to convictions; §53a-32(d) does not authorize special parole on revocation, so sentence is illegal Held: Special parole after revocation falls within "any lesser sentence" in §53a-32(d); imposition was authorized and not illegal
Effect of statutory scheme and sentencing harmony Statutes governing sentencing (§53a-28, §53a-32, §54-125e) should be read together; special parole was intended as a supervised-release option Omission of "special parole" from §53a-32(d) means it cannot be imposed after revocation absent legislative change Held: Reading statutes together supports availability of special parole as part of a lesser sentence on revocation; defendant’s textualist restriction rejected
Due process—must sentencing judge decide §43-22 motion? Any judicial authority may correct illegal sentence under Practice Book §43-22; no due process violation if another judge hears motion Battle: Judge Alexander (sentencing judge) should have adjudicated to protect fairness; failure denied due process Held: No authority requires the original sentencing judge to decide the motion; no deprivation of a full and fair proceeding; Golding review fails on merits

Key Cases Cited

  • State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 (Appellate jurisdiction and colorable claim standard for §43-22)
  • State v. Tabone, 279 Conn. 527 (distinguishing probation revocation exposure and scope of illegal sentence challenges)
  • State v. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239 (statutory history and purpose of special parole in sentencing scheme)
  • State v. Santos T., 146 Conn. App. 532 (discussing trial court authority concerning special parole in related contexts)
  • State v. Francis, 322 Conn. 247 (describing §43-22 as directed to the sentencing court, but not mandating that only the sentencing judge may act)
  • Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 (trial court as proper forum to correct illegal sentences)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Battle
Court Name: Connecticut Appellate Court
Date Published: Aug 27, 2019
Citations: 192 Conn.App. 128; 217 A.3d 637; AC40578
Docket Number: AC40578
Court Abbreviation: Conn. App. Ct.
Log In