State v. Lugojanu, 184 Conn. App. 576

Background

Defendant Laurentiu Lugojanu pleaded guilty (Alford plea) to conspiracy to commit home invasion after rejecting an initial 10-year plea offer and later accepting a revised deal recommending 20 years imprisonment, execution suspended after 12 years, plus five years probation.
At sentencing the court imposed the agreed 20-year sentence with five years probation; Lugojanu filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22.
The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Lugojanu appealed. The appeals were consolidated.
Lugojanu raised three grounds in the motion: (1) his 20-year imprisonment plus 5 years probation unlawfully exceeded the 20-year statutory maximum for a class B felony; (2) his sentence was disparate compared to co-defendants; and (3) the prosecutor vindictively increased the recommended sentence after he exercised his right to a jury trial.
The appellate court reviewed whether each claim fell within the narrow categories of relief permitted by Practice Book § 43-22 (motions to correct illegal sentence) and whether dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's (State) Argument	Defendant's (Lugojanu) Argument	Held
Whether a 20-year term of imprisonment followed by 5 years probation exceeds the statutory maximum for a class B felony	The sentence is within statutory authority because imprisonment with suspended execution plus probation is authorized and the maximum imprisonment exposure remains 20 years	The combined 20 years imprisonment + 5 years probation effectively constitutes a 25-year sentence, exceeding the 20-year class B felony maximum	Court held the sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum; claim falls within §43-22 jurisdiction and should have been denied on the merits (not dismissed)
Whether sentencing disparity with co-defendants is reviewable under §43-22	Such disparity claim is not within the narrow categories of §43-22 and therefore not jurisdictional	The disparity between his sentence and co-defendants’ sentences makes the sentence subject to correction under §43-22	Court held the disparity claim is outside §43-22’s scope; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper
Whether the prosecutor vindictively increased the plea offer after defendant sought a jury trial, creating an illegal sentence claim	Vindictive plea negotiation conduct occurred during plea bargaining, not sentencing, and therefore is not a basis for §43-22 relief	Prosecutor doubled the offer as punishment for invoking trial rights, so the resulting plea/sentence is tainted and correctable	Court held the alleged vindictive conduct occurred during plea negotiations (not sentencing) and is not cognizable under §43-22; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was proper

Key Cases Cited

State v. Tabone, 279 Conn. 527 (establishes §43-22 limited jurisdiction to correct illegal sentences)
State v. Dupree, 196 Conn. 655 (authorization for imprisonment with suspended execution and probation)
State v. Osuch, 124 Conn. App. 572 (review standard and scope for motions to correct)
State v. Jason B., 176 Conn. App. 236 (requirement that sentencing proceeding be the subject of the attack under §43-22)
State v. Robles, 169 Conn. App. 127 (four categories of claims cognizable under §43-22)
State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487 (sentences within statutory limits are generally not subject to §43-22 review)
State v. Francis, 322 Conn. 247 (limitations of motion to correct and reliance on the sentencing record)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (use of an Alford plea)