204 Conn.App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background
- On April 1, 2016 King was stopped in Connecticut, submitted to breath testing, and recorded BACs of .1801 and .1785; he was convicted under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-227a(a).
- The state charged King as a third-time offender under § 14-227a(g) based on two prior Florida DUI convictions (stemming from conduct in 1999 and 2005; convictions in 2000 and 2006).
- The trial court found the Florida convictions satisfied § 14-227a(g)’s requirement that out-of-state offenses have "essential elements" substantially the same as Connecticut’s statute and sentenced King to an enhanced term.
- King appealed, arguing (1) Florida’s DUI statute (actual physical control) is not substantially the same as Connecticut’s (operation), (2) Florida’s statute covers non-motorized vehicles and areas not proscribed by pre-2006 Connecticut law, and (3) the court should apply the version of § 14-227a in effect at the time of his Florida conduct (arguing ex post facto and element mismatches); he also asked the court to overrule Burns and Mattioli.
- The Appellate Court applied the revision of § 14-227a in effect at the time of King’s Connecticut offense, rejected King’s element-difference arguments, and affirmed the enhanced sentence; the court declined to overrule Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which revision of § 14-227a governs comparison and whether applying current revision violates ex post facto | Use the revision in effect at time of Connecticut offense; applying current statute does not impose extra punishment for prior out-of-state acts | Must compare prior convictions to the statute as written when Florida conduct occurred; using the current statute is ex post facto | Current revision (as of the Connecticut offense) controls; no ex post facto violation because enhancement punishes only the last offense |
| Whether Connecticut’s "operation" element is substantially the same as Florida’s "actual physical control" | Substantially the same in practice; both prohibit being in a position to set the vehicle in motion | "Actual physical control" is broader and can criminalize conduct not reaching Connecticut "operation" | Elements need not be identical; Connecticut operation and Florida actual physical control are substantially similar based on how courts apply them |
| Whether Connecticut requires a motorized vehicle while Florida covers non-motorized vehicles | Statutory definitions are broad and effectively align; both reach vehicles used on highways | Florida criminalizes non-motorized devices (e.g., bicycles) while Connecticut refers to "motor vehicle" | Both statutes cover non-motorized conveyances used on public ways under their statutory definitions; not a disqualifying difference |
| Whether Burns and Mattioli should be overruled (look-back and which prior convictions count toward enhancement) | Precedent is controlling; appellate court bound by Supreme Court decisions | Burns and Mattioli conflict with plain language of § 14-227a(g); should be overruled | Appellate Court cannot overrule Supreme Court; Burns and Mattioli remain binding on this court |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burns, 236 Conn. 18 (Conn. 1996) (holding prior convictions must be within the statutory look-back period measured from underlying conduct)
- State v. Mattioli, 210 Conn. 573 (Conn. 1989) (holding only the last prior conviction before the charged offense must fall within the look-back period)
- Gryger v. Burke, 334 U.S. 728 (U.S. 1948) (repeat-offender statutes may be applied even if predicate convictions predate the statute)
- McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311 (U.S. 1901) (habitual offender statutes do not violate ex post facto where punishment is for the last offense)
- Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1994) (repeat-offender enhancements punish the most recent offense)
- State v. Cyr, 291 Conn. 49 (Conn. 2009) (treating "operation" broadly and equating it with conduct putting a vehicle in a position to be set in motion)
- State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546 (Conn. 2006) (comparing operation to actual physical control in other jurisdictions)
- State v. Holloway, 144 Conn. 295 (Conn. 1957) (holding habitual offender statute does not operate ex post facto where it enhances punishment only for subsequent offense)