State v. Jimenez
2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 147
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Jimenez, self-represented on appeal, was convicted by jury of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person not drug-dependent under § 21a-278(a) and possession with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school under § 21a-278a(b).
- The trial court sentenced him to 35 years for the § 21a-278(a) count and 3 years, consecutive, for the § 21a-278a(b) count, for a total of 38 years.
- This court affirmed the judgment on direct appeal, State v. Jimenez, 73 Conn.App. 664 (2002).
- In August 2009, Jimenez filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence arguing the 35-year term exceeded the statute’s limit and was ambiguous, among other claims.
- The trial court denied the motion to correct as to those arguments, concluding the statute allows 5 years to life and dismissing other jurisdictional claims.
- Jimenez then sought appointment of appellate counsel; the trial court appointed counsel to evaluate appeal but later denied the request, and Jimenez appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the § 21a-278(a) sentence was illegal or misinterpreted | Jimenez argued the 35-year term exceeded the statutory maximum and was ambiguous. | Jimenez contends the court misapplied § 21a-278(a). | Not illegal; § 21a-278(a) permits 5 years to life. |
| Whether the sentence is ambiguous under § 21a-278(a) | The sentence ambiguity rendered the sentence illegal. | The statute’s interpretation renders the sentence unambiguous. | Not ambiguous; proper interpretation retained. |
| Whether the denial of appellate counsel appointment is reviewable | Appellate counsel appointment should be reviewed on appeal. | Claim should have been pursued via a motion for review under Practice Book § 66-6. | Dismissed; cannot review under this appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Delossantos, 211 Conn. 258 (1989) (statutory range for § 21a-278(a) is five years to life)
- State v. McNellis, 15 Conn.App. 416 (1988) (illegal sentence includes exceeding statutory limits and ambiguity)
- State v. Casiano, 122 Conn.App. 61 (2010) (sole remedy for petition to review appointment of counsel)