143 Conn. App. 76
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant stole a purse and used cards from it on May 8, 2007; state charged burglary, credit card theft, and failure to appear; part B information alleged persistent serious felony offender status based on a 1990 burglary conviction; defendant pled guilty under Alford to both informations on May 30, 2008; sentenced August 8, 2008 to 20 years with eight years exposure, five years of probation.
- Defendant moved to correct an illegal sentence alleging no public-interest finding under §53a-40(j) before 2008; court denied the motion.
- Issue arises whether the pre-2008 public-interest finding was required and whether Bell retroactively applies to this pending case.
- Supreme Court held §53a-40(j) was not applicable post‑Bell retroactivity in this case; defendant’s plea did not expressly admit the public-interest finding, so the court erred by not making a finding; remanded for fact-finder to determine public interest or for defendant to acknowledge it.
- Court reviewed four categories for illegal-sentence review under §43-22 and concluded remedial action required; Bell and Reynolds govern how public-interest findings may be satisfied in guilty-plea cases.
- Defendant’s additional claim about §53a-40 exemption under subsection (c) was abandoned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public-interest finding required for enhanced sentence | Kokkinakos argues pre-2008 §53a-40(j) required public-interest finding; no finding was made. | State contends plea admission implied public-interest finding and Bell retroactivity not needed. | Remand for public-interest determination; a finding is required or acknowledged. |
| Retroactivity of Bell to pending cases | Bell retroactivity should apply to pending matters. | Retroactivity not required; case not final earlier. | Bell retroactivity analysis discussed; remand independent of retroactivity outcome. |
| Waiver of jury determination | Defendant did not expressly admit public interest; waiver alone not enough. | Plea canvass and counsel notice suffice to waive jury for public-interest issue. | Waiver did not substitute for an express public-interest finding; wrongfully denied illegal-sentence relief. |
| Effect of plea on public-interest finding | Guilty plea cannot substitute for required ruling on public interest when not expressly obtained. | Defense counsel explanation and defendant's waiver should suffice. | Court must determine public interest or obtain explicit acknowledgement; remand ordered. |
| Remedial disposition | Remand to provide proper fact-finding. | N/A | Remand to enable fact-finder to determine public-interest conclusion or for acknowledgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (2010) (retrospective public-interest determination under §53a-40; jury-not-required when waived by defendant)
- State v. Reynolds, 126 Conn. App. 291 (2011) (remand when defendant did not expressly admit public-interest finding in plea)
- State v. Gore, 288 Conn. 770 (2008) (governs canvass to waive right to jury trial on §53a-40 issues)
- State v. Michael A., 297 Conn. 808 (2010) (discusses applicability of §53a-40 criteria post‑Bell)