State v. Henderson, 312 Conn. 585

In 1993 Henderson was convicted (jury) of first‑degree robbery and related offenses and pleaded guilty to persistent dangerous/serious felony offender designations under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-40 (Rev. to 1993). The court (Espinosa, J.) imposed an enhanced sentence under § 53a-40(f)–(g).
At sentencing the prosecutor urged enhanced incarceration based on Henderson’s extensive violent recidivism; Judge Espinosa described his serious criminal history and said she had "no alternative . . . but then to impose a lengthy sentence." The court imposed a lengthy enhanced term (45 years, execution suspended after 35).
In 2008 Henderson filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing (based on this Court’s decision in State v. Bell) that the jury must determine the factual predicate that an enhanced sentence would serve the public interest; the trial court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the Appellate Court denied relief on nonretroactivity/merits grounds.
Henderson then filed a second motion to correct asserting Judge Espinosa failed to make the § 53a-40 public‑interest finding; the trial court (Dewey, J.) denied that motion as barred by res judicata.
The Supreme Court granted review on the res judicata issue but affirmed on the alternative ground that the sentencing judge implicitly made the required public‑interest finding — explicit statutory phrasing not required if the record as a whole shows the court considered the factors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Henderson's second motion was barred by res judicata	State: the second motion raised the same claim and is precluded	Henderson: the second motion raised a different claim (failure to make the finding)	Court affirmed on alternative ground (not reach res judicata): sentencing court did make the finding implicitly
Whether Judge Espinosa made the § 53a-40(f)/(g) "public interest" finding	State: record and Henderson’s prior statements show the court did make the finding	Henderson: judge did not talismanically recite the statutory language; thus finding was not made	Held: court may infer required finding from remarks showing consideration of history, character, nature/circumstances; explicit words unnecessary
Whether the Supreme Court may affirm on an alternative ground sua sponte that was not distinctly argued by the state on appeal	State: Court may raise alternative ground where likely to arise on remand and record is adequate	Henderson: reviewing alternative not raised by appellee causes prejudice	Held: Court may affirm sua sponte on alternative ground here given judicial‑economy, adequate record, and lack of specific prejudice

State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (Conn. 2007) (held that public‑interest factual predicate for enhanced sentence is an ultimate factual determination and jury protections apply to required findings)
State v. Robinson, 227 Conn. 711 (Conn. 1993) (court will not require talismanic recitation of particular words when record shows the proper legal determination)
State v. Elson, 311 Conn. 726 (Conn. 2014) (refusal to attach talismanic significance to presence or absence of particular words in various contexts)
Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123 (Conn. 2014) (permitting courts to raise alternative grounds for affirmance in the interest of judicial economy)
Blumenthal v. Kimber Mfg., Inc., 265 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2003) (presumption that trial court applied law correctly; burden on appellant to show otherwise)
State v. Kokkinakos, 143 Conn. App. 76 (Conn. App. 2013) (Appellate Court held public‑interest factor must be satisfied either by express judicial finding or defendant’s express agreement in guilty‑plea context)
State v. Reynolds, 126 Conn. App. 291 (Conn. App. 2011) (Appellate Court held trial court must make the public‑interest determination when defendant pleads guilty to persistent offender designation)