State v. Felder, 2013 WL 5798968

Felder challenged his sentence as illegal for double jeopardy; trial court denied the motion.
Appellate history summarized Felder v. State: in 2002 he was charged with robbery, conspiracy, two larceny counts, and assault; jury acquitted on some counts and convicted on two larceny counts (counts 3 and 4) with a total sentence of 30 years.
On April 16, 2012 Felder filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence asserting the two larceny convictions arose from the same transaction and same victim.
Trial court denied the motion on May 15, 2012, holding the motor-vehicle theft and wallet theft were separate offenses and did not violate double jeopardy.
The appellate court applied Blockburger to determine whether the two larceny offenses constitute the same offense; it concluded the offenses have different elements and therefore are not the same offense.
Statutory context noted: 53a-122(a)(3) (value >10k, in 2002) vs 53a-123(a)(3) (taken from the person); current 2009 amendment raised the value threshold to >20k, but the court deemed Blockburger applicable and not precluded by legislative intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do larceny in the first and second degrees constitute the same offense under double jeopardy?	Felder contends the counts arise from the same transaction.	State argues the offenses have distinct elements.	No; not the same offense under Blockburger.

State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640, 11 A.3d 663 (2011) (Conn. 2011) (double jeopardy requires same offense and same transaction for multiple punishments)
State v. Burnell, 290 Conn. 634, 966 A.2d 168 (2009) (Conn. 2009) (plenary review of double jeopardy question; two-step analysis)
State v. Alvaro F., 291 Conn. 1, 966 A.2d 712 (2009) (Conn. 2009) (Blockburger test; statutory construction governs same-offense inquiry)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) (Supreme Court 1932) (same act or transaction; offense elements determine single vs multiple offenses)