192 Conn.App. 147
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Kenya Brown pleaded guilty in 2003 to attempt murder and first‑degree robbery and received an effective 20‑year term.
- In 2006 he pleaded guilty to second‑degree assault (18 months) to run consecutively to the 2003 sentence.
- In 2012 he pleaded guilty to first‑degree threatening (15 months) to run consecutively to his earlier sentences.
- In 2018 Brown filed a self‑represented motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing §§ 53a‑37 and 53a‑38 were ambiguous/contradictory and that § 53a‑38 violated due process, double jeopardy, and equal protection because aggregation affected parole and risk reduction credits.
- The trial court denied the motion after an assistant public defender reviewed it and reported no sound basis; Brown appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Brown) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §§ 53a‑37 and 53a‑38 are ambiguous or internally contradictory as applied to Brown’s consecutive sentences | Statutes ambiguous/contradictory because consecutive 2006 and 2012 sentences altered his 2003 plea expectations and notice regarding early release | Statutes plainly require court to order concurrent or consecutive runs and provide clear calculation rules; DOC policy changes aren’t challengeable on motion to correct | Statutes are clear; no ambiguity or contradiction; calculation under § 53a‑38(b)(2) correctly aggregates terms |
| Whether a challenge to DOC’s post‑sentencing calculation/policy is cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence | Aggregation and DOC policy changes made his sentence illegal as executed | A motion to correct targets the sentencing proceeding itself; challenges to DOC’s later calculations are not cognizable | Not cognizable on motion to correct; court lacked jurisdiction over post‑sentencing calculation claims (portion should be dismissed, not denied) |
| Whether § 53a‑38(b)(2) violates due process by affecting parole and risk reduction credit eligibility | Aggregation deprived him of promised early‑release benefits and fair notice, violating due process | Claims about parole/credits and DOC discretion are not cognizable in motion to correct; no vested liberty interest in parole/credits | Due process claim fails; not cognizable and no cognizable liberty interest in parole/risk credit timing |
| Whether § 53a‑38(b)(2) violates double jeopardy or equal protection | Aggregation causes multiple punishments and treats prisoners (consecutive sentences) unfairly | Double jeopardy prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense; Brown received distinct sentences for separate offenses; prisoners are not a suspect class so equal protection reviewed under rational basis | Double jeopardy claim fails (distinct offenses, administrative parole decisions are not new punishments); equal protection claim fails under rational‑basis review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 (2007) (motion to correct sentence is narrow; court must review whether sentencing proceeding is attacked)
- State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825 (2010) (definition and scope of illegal sentence and sentences imposed in an illegal manner)
- State v. Carmona, 104 Conn. App. 828 (2007) (challenges to DOC’s post‑sentencing calculations are not cognizable on motion to correct)
- Perez v. Commissioner of Correction, 326 Conn. 357 (2017) (prisoners do not constitute a suspect class; no vested liberty interest in parole eligibility or timing)
- Alessi v. Quinlan, 711 F.2d 497 (2d Cir. 1983) (denial of parole is administrative withholding of early release, not punishment for Double Jeopardy Clause purposes)