State v. Fairchild, 108 A.3d 1162

Defendant Fairchild pled guilty January 24, 2012 under Garvin to burglary in the third degree and admitted guilt to related larceny charges; total effective sentence of five years with suspension after 14 months and three years probation.
Sentencing hearings were repeatedly continued (March 6 → March 12 → April 20 → May 18, 2012) due to defense availability and requests.
Between pleading and sentencing, Fairchild was arrested twice on new charges; the court found probable cause for postplea arrests and noted Garvin agreement breach, indicating possible enhanced penalties up to ten years.
At May 18, 2012, the court afforded opportunity to speak; defense emphasized drug addiction as mitigating; court sentenced seven years total, with unconditional discharge on the license-suspension charge.
September 25, 2012 Fairchild moved to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22, asserting lack of notice for sentencing and impaired allocution; court denied after a hearing and issued a memorandum of decision.
On appeal, Fairchild contends lack of notice and opportunity to contest evidence violated due process; the state argues lack of jurisdiction or proper denial; appellate court ultimately upheld the ruling denying the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court had jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence.	Fairchild contends jurisdiction exists because the sentence was imposed illegally due to improper notice and allocution.	State contends § 43-22 cannot be used to modify a valid sentence once execution has begun and not for alleged notice/allocution defects.	Yes; court properly exercised jurisdiction under common-law grounds.
Whether the sentencing proceeding violated due process by lack of notice and inability to allocute or contest evidence.	Fairchild asserts he could not present witnesses or mitigation because not prepared for May 18 hearing.	State argues there was notice to attend and opportunity to speak; no due process violation.	No; record shows notice, opportunity to allocute, and ability to contest evidence; no due process violation.

State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825 (2010) (two-part jurisdictional framework for illegal-sentence corrections)
State v. Casiano, 122 Conn. App. 61 (2010) (limits on § 43-22; common-law grounds to correct sentences)
State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (2007) (criteria for reviewing sentencing-related claims)
State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825 (2010) (see above (duplicate listed for completeness))
State v. Stevens, 278 Conn. 1 (2006) (Garvin agreements; postplea arrests as sentencing indicators)
State v. Taylor, 91 Conn. App. 788 (2005) (preservation considerations for illegal-sentence claims)
State v. McNellis, 15 Conn. App. 416 (1988) (early discussions of § 43-22 and related remedies)