State v. Dayton, 176 Conn. App. 858

Stacey Dayton pleaded nolo contendere in 1995 to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence; the trial court accepted the plea and found him guilty but continued sentencing at his request.
Dayton failed to appear for sentencing on January 3, 1996; the court ordered his rearrest and set a $500 bond; the rearrest order remained until it was vacated and the case “closed out” under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-140(b) in 2004.
In July 2014 the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi as to all charges and the court noted the nolle on the record.
More than thirteen months later (September 2015) the state sought to redocket the case; Dayton moved to dismiss arguing lack of jurisdiction and statutory erasure of records after thirteen months.
The trial court denied the motion, finding the 2014 nolle was a mistake and that it retained jurisdiction; the court proceeded to sentence Dayton based on the earlier plea. Dayton appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Dayton)	Held
Applicability of fugitive-felon disentitlement	Appeal should be dismissed because Dayton absconded after failing to appear, prejudicing appellate process	Flight did not prejudice appellate review; state did not actively pursue him and much time passed before state actions	Appeal not dismissed; disentitlement doctrine inapplicable here
Jurisdiction after entry of nolle prosequi	Nolle was entered in error and the court could treat it as a clerical mistake and retain jurisdiction	Entry of the nolle terminated the prosecution; after >13 months records are erased and court lacks jurisdiction	Trial court erred; nolle terminated proceedings, records subject to statutory erasure after 13 months; dismissal required
Whether the trial court could correct the nolle as a clerical error	Court has inherent power to correct clerical errors nunc pro tunc	Prosecutor’s nolle was a substantive unilateral abandonment, not a clerical error, so it could not be treated as nunc pro tunc	Error was substantive (prosecutor’s act), not clerical; correction unavailable
Timeliness of any motion to open/set aside judgment	State implied relief could be afforded to correct mistake	Any motion to open/set aside was subject to statutory/time limits and no mutual mistake was shown	Even if treated as motion to open, state’s position was untimely and unsupported; judgment should be dismissed

State v. Brabham, 301 Conn. 376 (2011) (describing fugitive-felon disentitlement doctrine and burden-shifting framework)
State v. Kallberg, 326 Conn. 1 (2017) (discussing effects of nolle prosequi and distinction between unilateral nolles and plea agreements)
State v. Daly, 111 Conn. App. 397 (2008) (noting that a court generally lacks jurisdiction after a nolle and that records are erased after thirteen months)
Maguire v. Maguire, 222 Conn. 32 (1992) (distinguishing clerical from substantive errors that may be corrected)
Commonwealth v. Miranda, 415 Mass. 1 (1993) (Mass. S.J. Ct. holding that reinstating a nolled indictment is improper when the nolle effected a substantive termination)