State v. Johnson, 301 Conn. 630

Johnson was found incompetent and not restorable to competency after competency hearings in 2007–2008, affecting four cases: two misdemeanors (MV07-0672905-S; CR07-0293539-S), one felony (CR08-0297344-S), and a probation violation (CR06-0286981-S).
The defense moved to dismiss under § 54-56d(m)(5) for the misdemeanors and probation case on the ground that the applicable statute of limitations had expired, and to dismiss the felony under Practice Book § 41-8(5).
The trial court dismissed all four without prejudice, concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction after incompetency, and thus dismissed the proceedings.
The state appealed, contending § 54-56d(m)(5) applies to all charges and that limitations run from the offense date, not the incompetency finding.
The Supreme Court held that § 54-56d(m)(5) applies to all charges against a defendant found incompetent and not restor able, and that the limitations period runs from the offense date for purposes of that provision; the misdemeanor dismissals were proper on that basis, the felony dismissal was reversed/remanded for § 41-8(5) analysis, and the probation dismissal was not aggrieved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 54-56d(m)(5) apply to all charges when a defendant is incompetent?	Johnson's incompetence allows dismissal under m(5) for all charges	m(5) applies only to offenses resulting in death/serious injury	§ 54-56d(m)(5) applies to all charges against an incompetent defendant
When does the statute of limitations run for purposes of § 54-56d(m)(5)?	Run from incompetency finding or tolling during appeal	Run from date of offense; the timing should be measured differently	The limitations period runs from the date of the offense (not from incompetency)
Does the court retain personal jurisdiction after incompetency findings under § 54-56d(g)?	Court retains jurisdiction until dismissal under m(5) or statute expired	Court loses jurisdiction after incompetency ruling	Court retains jurisdiction until charges are dismissed under § 54-56d(m)(5)
Was the state aggrieved, and thus has standing to appeal the dismissal of the probation charge?	Yes, dismissal affects reinstatement potential if competency resumes	No, probation charge not subject to limitations and could be reinstituted	State aggrieved; the appeal survives only as to other charges; probation dismissal dismissed for lack of aggrievement
Should the felony charge be dismissed under § 41-8(5) or § 54-56d(m)(5)?	m(5) supports dismissal based on limitations	41-8(5) may govern if the case remains viable	Remand for § 41-8(5) analysis; felony dismissal not affirmed on m(5) grounds

State v. Lenczyk, 11 Conn. App. 224, 526 A.2d 554 (1987) (dismissal without prejudice does not bar reinstitution within the limitations period)
State v. Garcia, 235 Conn. 671, 669 A.2d 573 (1996) (tolling during appeal to effectuate § 54-56d)
State ex rel. Gregan v. Koczur, 287 Conn. 145, 947 A.2d 282 (2008) (statutory interpretation guiding § 54-56d mechanics)
State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 463 A.2d 566 (1983) (interlocutory appealability where rights are concluded)
In re Jan Carlos D., 297 Conn. 16, 997 A.2d 471 (2010) (statutory interpretation in context of competency and related procedures)