State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770

Background

Evans pleaded guilty (Alford) in 2011 to sale of narcotics under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278(b); sentence: 5 years imprisonment + 5 years special parole. Drug dependency was not addressed at plea.
§ 21a-278(b) imposes a mandatory minimum (5 years) for sale of certain narcotics by a person "who is not ... a drug-dependent person." § 21a-269 places burden on defendant to prove exceptions/exemptions.
Evans filed a Practice Book § 43-22 motion (2015) to correct an illegal sentence, arguing Apprendi/Alleyne require the State to plead/prove lack of drug dependency (an element) and that Ray (State v. Ray) should be overruled.
The trial court denied the motion, relying on State v. Ray (290 Conn. 602 (2009)) holding drug dependency is an affirmative defense the defendant must prove; Evans appealed and this court transferred the appeal.
The court considered jurisdiction (motion to correct vs. challenge to conviction; mootness due to plea) and concluded the motion was colorably directed to the sentence and not moot because Evans did not admit lack of drug dependency in his plea.
The court reaffirmed Ray, holding Alleyne does not compel treating lack of drug dependency as an element where state law makes dependency an affirmative defense; statute does not violate separation of powers.

Issues

Issue	Evans' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Subject-matter jurisdiction over motion to correct	Motion raises Alleyne/Apprendi claim that sentence is illegal; court has jurisdiction to correct illegal sentence	Motion improperly challenges conviction; plea bargain moots claim	Court had jurisdiction: claim was colorably directed to sentence and not moot because plea did not admit lack of dependency
Does Alleyne require State to plead/prove lack of drug dependency (i.e., treat it as element)?	Alleyne/Apprendi require jury/State proof of any fact that increases mandatory minimum; lack of dependency increases punishment and thus is an element	Alleyne preserves states' ability to classify mitigating circumstances as affirmative defenses (Patterson); Ray remains valid	Ray remains good law: lack of drug dependency is an affirmative defense the defendant must prove; Alleyne does not compel overruling Ray
Statutory interpretation: is § 21a-278(b) an aggravated form of § 21a-277(a) making lack of dependency an element?	Text, structure, and legislative history show § 21a-278(b) is aggravated § 21a-277(a); thus lack of dependency should be an element	Stare decisis and legislative acquiescence (including technical 2017 amendments) support Ray’s construction	Court declines to reinterpret statute; legislative inaction and P.A. 17-17 indicate acquiescence to Ray
Separation of powers: does making dependency an affirmative defense improperly delegate sentencing power to prosecutors?	Prosecutor’s charging choice between otherwise identical statutes gives executive control over imposition of mandatory minimums, violating separation of powers	Precedent permits legislature to set sentences and give prosecutors charging discretion; Darden controls	Court rejects separation-of-powers challenge; statute valid and Darden controls

Key Cases Cited

State v. Ray, 290 Conn. 602 (Conn. 2009) (held lack of drug dependency is an affirmative defense under § 21a-278(b))
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (U.S. 2013) (facts that increase mandatory minimums are elements requiring jury finding)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (any fact increasing maximum penalty must be proved to jury beyond reasonable doubt)
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (U.S. 1977) (states may place burden on defendant to prove affirmative defenses)
State v. Hart, 221 Conn. 595 (Conn. 1992) (reallocated burden: defendant must prove drug dependency by preponderance)
State v. Darden, 171 Conn. 677 (Conn. 1976) (upheld mandatory minimum and prosecutorial charging discretion against separation-of-powers challenge)
State v. McCahill, 261 Conn. 492 (Conn. 2002) (separation-of-powers invalidation where statute significantly interfered with judicial functioning)