132 Conn. App. 172
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Bruno was convicted of murder and tampering with evidence and sentenced to 60 years, later affirmed by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- Bruno filed multiple habeas petitions alleging ineffective assistance and jury trial issues, which were denied by the habeas court and affirmed on appeal.
- Nearly sixteen years after sentencing, Bruno moved for a new trial under Practice Book §§ 42-53 and 42-54, asserting lack of knowing, voluntary, and intelligent jury waiver.
- The trial court denied the motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction to entertain merits under those Practice Book rules.
- The appellate court reviews jurisdiction de novo and agrees the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the 42-53/42-54 motion because jurisdiction terminates at sentencing.
- The court clarifies Practice Book provisions cannot confer jurisdiction; a motion for a new trial must be brought before termination of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear a 42-53/42-54 motion for a new trial after sentencing | Bruno contends the rules authorize post-sentencing relief for errors affecting jury waiver. | State contends jurisdiction ends at sentencing; PB rules do not extend jurisdiction past that termination. | Court had no jurisdiction; affirm the trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeVivo, 106 Conn.App. 641 (2008) (plenary review of jurisdiction; subject-matter question)
- Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 (2001) (jurisdiction terminates with sentencing; acts after are unauthorized)
- State v. Morrison, 39 Conn.App. 632 (1995) (courts cannot confer jurisdiction through rulemaking)
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (2007) (rules cannot abridge substantive rights or court jurisdiction)
- State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764 (2006) (jurisdiction terminates with the conclusion of the proceeding; rule-based limits)
- State v. Luzietti, 230 Conn. 427 (1994) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant certain post-judgment motions)
- State v. Asherman, 180 Conn. 141 (1980) (motion for a new trial is a progression toward final judgment)
- Hoberman v. Lake of Isles, Inc., 138 Conn. 573 (1952) (motion for new trial contemplates action while court has power to modify)
- State v. Coleman, 202 Conn. 86 (1987) (final judgment is imposition of sentence; limits on post-judgment petitions)
- State v. Rogelstad, 73 Conn.App. 17 (2002) (proper procedure required; filing on proper docket matters for §52-270)
- State v. Servello, 14 Conn.App. 88 (1988) (differences between §52-270 petitions and practice rules are substantive)
- Simms v. Warden, 229 Conn. 178 (1994) (rule-based jurisdiction limitations; pleading mechanics)