State v. Clark, 136 Conn. App. 421

Defendant Shamon Clark pleaded guilty by Alford plea to possession of narcotics (General Statutes § 21a-279(a)) and conspiracy to sell narcotics (Constitutional provisions); agreed sentence was 18 years with execution suspended after 6.5 years and 5 years probation.
Garvin conditional plea agreement required defendant to refrain from criminal activity or face possible imposition of the maximum sentence (27 years) and potential withdrawal of the agreement.
Defendant violated Garvin conditions on December 6, 2006 by possessing drugs, an AK-47, and a bulletproof vest; state informed court of breach.
Courts sentenced defendant on February 9, 2007 to 18 years with execution suspended after 12 years and 5 years probation; he later moved to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22 (2010).
Trial court denied the § 43-22 motion; defendant claimed the Garvin violation rendered his plea unknowingly and involuntarily entered; state argued motion attacked the plea, not the sentence, and was outside § 43-22.
Court held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Practice Book § 43-22 because the motion attacked the validity of the plea, not the sentence, and accordingly reversed and dismissed the motion.]
The opinion notes that despite no transcript of the hearing, jurisdictional ruling governs and cites State v. Osuch, State v. Saunders, State v. Mollo, and North Carolina v. Alford for principles on § 43-22 jurisdiction and plea validity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion to correct an illegal sentence falls within § 43-22.	State argues motion challenged legality of the sentence under § 43-22.	Clark contends motion attacks plea validity due to involuntary plea.	Motion outside § 43-22; court lacked jurisdiction; remanded to dismiss.
Whether the claim of an illegal sentence implicates plea validity.	State maintains no plea validity issue under § 43-22.	Clark argues plea was unknowingly and involuntarily entered.	Claim attacks plea, not sentence, so § 43-22 does not apply; jurisdiction lacking.

State v. Osuch, 124 Conn. App. 572 (Conn. App. 2010) (limits of § 43-22; review is plenary on law questions)
State v. Saunders, 132 Conn. App. 268 (Conn. App. 2011) (§ 43-22 relief requires a valid conviction)
State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487 (Conn. App. 2001) (§ 43-22 relief requires valid conviction; motion to correct illegal sentence not to attack conviction)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (Sup. Ct. 1970) (constitutional rights related to addressing grievances at sentencing)