State v. Crenshaw
161 A.3d 638
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Darryl Crenshaw was convicted after a consolidated trial of murder, assault (third degree), and two counts of kidnapping (second degree); originally sentenced to a total effective 78 years.
- The Supreme Court reversed one kidnapping conviction (Enfield count), holding only one kidnapping was proven, and remanded for resentencing.
- At original sentencing the court imposed: kidnapping (3 yrs), assault (1 yr, concurrent with the 3), murder (60 yrs), and the other kidnapping (15 yrs) — counts arranged to total 78 years.
- At resentencing the defendant asked the court to excise the vacated 15-year kidnapping term, producing a 63-year total; the state and court sought to reconstruct the package to preserve the original 78-year total.
- The trial court, recalling its original intent to impose 78 years, restructured the remaining sentences (kidnapping 18 yrs, assault 1 yr concurrent, murder 60 yrs consecutive) to a total effective 78 years and the defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could apply the aggregate package theory on resentencing without having used the phrase "aggregate package approach" (or equivalent) at original sentencing | Court may reconstruct sentences to reflect original sentencing intent; state urged preservation of the original 78-year package | Crenshaw: due process violated because original sentence did not expressly state the aggregate package approach on the record; talismanic words required | Court held no talismanic phrase required; court may apply aggregate package theory if original sentencing intent is clear and the new total does not exceed the original 78 years |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, 474 U.S. 28 (1985) (federal per curiam authority endorsing aggregate package approach)
- United States v. Dominguez, 951 F.2d 412 (1st Cir. 1991) (federal appellate application of aggregate package theory)
- State v. Raucci, 21 Conn. App. 557 (Conn. App. 1990) (Connecticut Appellate Court adopting aggregate package approach)
- State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 (Conn. 2002) (Connecticut Supreme Court endorsing trial court discretion to restructure sentencing package on remand)