State v. Henderson, 163 A.3d 74

Defendant Mitchell Henderson convicted of first‑degree robbery and attempt to escape; pleaded guilty under Alford to two persistent‑offender informations.
Sentenced to an effective 45 years, execution suspended after 35; robbery enhanced under § 53a‑40(a)/(f) (persistent dangerous felony offender) and attempted escape enhanced under § 53a‑40(b)/(g) (persistent serious felony offender).
Defendant moved (2014) to correct an illegal sentence, arguing double jeopardy (multiple punishments) and that the legislature did not intend simultaneous application of both persistent‑offender enhancements.
Trial court denied the motion, concluding the two enhancements did not violate double jeopardy and were consistent with statutory text and legislative intent.
Court of Appeals reviews legal questions de novo and affirms: (1) the underlying substantive offenses arose from separate transactions and are distinct under Blockburger; (2) statutory text/legislative history permit separate enhancements for distinct qualifying convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Henderson)	Held
Double jeopardy / multiple punishment	Enhancements are sentence enhancements tied to distinct substantive convictions; look to underlying offenses, not enhancement statutes; convictions arose from separate transactions.	Two persistent‑offender classifications arose from same prior convictions and punish same conduct; § 53a‑40(a) and (b) are the same offense under Blockburger.	No double jeopardy violation: robbery and attempted escape were temporally/substantively distinct and not the same offense under Blockburger.
Legislative intent re: multiple enhancements	Plain statutory text allows enhancement for each qualifying present conviction; legislative history and comments do not limit enhancements to one per defendant when convictions are distinct.	Legislature intended only one recidivist enhancement when multiple current convictions exist (relying on Commission comment and Ledbetter policy).	No conflict with legislative intent: text and legislative history support separate enhancements for distinct qualifying convictions; Ledbetter (subsection (d)) inapplicable here.

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
State v. Ledbetter, 240 Conn. 317 (1997) (simultaneous convictions cannot be used as two prior convictions for certain persistent‑offender provision)
State v. Tabone, 279 Conn. 527 (double jeopardy and Practice Book § 43‑22 principles)
State v. Jones‑Richards, 271 Conn. 115 (§ 53a‑40 is a sentence enhancement, not a separate criminal offense)
State v. Velasco, 253 Conn. 210 (§ 53a‑40 construed as sentence enhancement)
State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1 (application of Blockburger and analysis limited to statutes/information)
Graham v. West Virginia, 224 U.S. 616 (recidivist information is proof of fact, not an independent offense)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (Alford plea doctrine)