State v. Bennett, 187 Conn. App. 847

Defendant Calvin Bennett was tried to a three-judge panel and convicted of felony murder, home invasion, and first‑degree burglary in connection with the October 2008 killing of James Caffrey; the Supreme Court later vacated only the aiding-and-abetting murder conviction but affirmed others.
At ~1:00 a.m., Maner shot Caffrey; after entry, Bennett and Maner went into the bedroom where Bennett pointed a gun at Samantha Bright and asked "where is everything?"; they ransacked a drawer and fled.
The long‑form information charged first‑degree burglary (entering a dwelling at night with intent to commit larceny) and home invasion (entering while a nonparticipant is present and, in the course of the offense, a participant commits a felony against that person).
Bennett moved to correct an illegal sentence arguing his burglary and home invasion convictions violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because the home invasion (robbery) was incidental to the burglary/larceny and part of one continuous transaction.
Trial court denied the motion; this appeal presents the legal question whether both convictions arose from the same act/transaction such that multiple punishments are barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conviction for burglary in the first degree and home invasion violates double jeopardy	State: The information alleges separable acts — unlawful nighttime entry supporting burglary and a subsequent threatened use of force supporting home invasion	Bennett: The robbery/home invasion was incidental to and part of a single uninterrupted burglary/larceny transaction, so punishing both is double jeopardy	Court: The acts were susceptible to separation; jury reasonably could find distinct factual bases for each offense, so no double jeopardy violation

State v. Bennett, 307 Conn. 758, 59 A.3d 221 (Conn. 2013) (prior Supreme Court decision in the same prosecution; affirmed most convictions)
State v. Schovanec, 326 Conn. 310, 163 A.3d 581 (Conn. 2017) (two‑step double jeopardy analysis: same transaction and then Blockburger)
State v. Tweedy, 219 Conn. 489, 594 A.2d 906 (Conn. 1991) (transaction may be divisible into separate crimes if separate acts with requisite intent occurred)
State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509, 949 A.2d 1092 (Conn. 2008) (kidnapping cannot be charged when restraint is merely incidental to another offense)
State v. Gemmell, 151 Conn. App. 590, 94 A.3d 1253 (Conn. App. 2014) (rejection of claim that home invasion was incidental to other offenses)
State v. Porter, 328 Conn. 648, 182 A.3d 625 (Conn. 2018) (Blockburger technical test focuses on statutes, information, and bill of particulars)
State v. Snook, 210 Conn. 244, 555 A.2d 390 (Conn. 1989) (assessment whether jury could reasonably find separate factual bases for each offense)
White v. Commissioner of Correction, 170 Conn. App. 415, 154 A.3d 1054 (Conn. App. 2017) (discussed burglary continuation; distinguished as addressing kidnapping/Salamon context)
State v. Meadows, 185 Conn. App. 287, 197 A.3d 464 (Conn. App. 2018) (acts in close temporal proximity can still be separable if information is susceptible to partition into distinct offenses)