State v. McGee
175 Conn. App. 566
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendant Frank McGee filed a motion to "correct an illegal sentence" claiming his two second-degree robbery convictions/punishments constituted multiple punishments for one offense (double jeopardy).
- The motion did not explicitly argue that the sentencing proceeding itself was illegal; it attacked the validity of the underlying convictions as duplicative.
- Appointed counsel filed a "sound basis" report concluding the two robbery counts were the same offense and one conviction/sentence should be vacated.
- The trial court dismissed the motion on the merits; the Appellate Court majority reached the substance and reversed/remanded to deny the motion.
- Judge Bishop dissented, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Practice Book § 43-22 because the motion was a collateral attack on convictions (not a sentencing-procedure challenge) and thus should have been dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McGee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does the trial court have jurisdiction under Practice Book § 43-22 to hear a motion framed as "correct an illegal sentence" when the real attack targets the underlying convictions? | § 43-22 is limited; jurisdiction exists only for sentencing errors, not collateral attacks on convictions. | § 43-22 may be used to remedy double jeopardy where convictions/sentences result in multiple punishments for the same offense. | Dissent: No jurisdiction — motion is a collateral attack on convictions; should be dismissed. (Majority reached merits and remanded to deny.) |
| 2. Can double jeopardy claims that attack convictions be remedied via § 43-22 after sentence execution? | Such claims are convictions issues and belong on direct appeal or habeas, not § 43-22 collateral proceedings. | Double jeopardy claims may be cognizable under § 43-22 and permit vacatur/merger of convictions in some circumstances. | Dissent: Double jeopardy relief that targets convictions is not within narrow § 43-22 jurisdiction; only sentencing-focused double jeopardy claims qualify. |
| 3. Should courts look to substance over form when a motion styled as a sentencing claim actually attacks trial proceedings? | Substance controls; courts must dismiss motions that are collateral attacks despite the caption. | Defendant insists relief via § 43-22 is proper when multiple punishments result from the same conduct. | Held (dissent): Substance shows attack on convictions; court lacked jurisdiction. Majority nonetheless treated claim as cognizable and reached merits. |
| 4. What is the proper scope/purpose of Practice Book § 43-22? | Narrow, expedited remedy focused on sentencing errors (statutory max, ambiguous/contradictory sentences, sentencing procedure, sentencing-only double jeopardy). | § 43-22 can in limited instances be used to correct merged/duplicative convictions and attendant sentences as double jeopardy remedies. | Dissent: § 43-22 should be limited to sentencing errors; expanding it to permit collateral attacks on convictions is improper and causes jurisprudential confusion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (Conn. 2007) (trial court loses jurisdiction after sentencing except to correct illegal sentence under common-law exception/Practice Book § 43-22)
- State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 (Conn. 2007) (appointment of counsel to review postconviction § 43-22 filings)
- State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487 (Conn. App. 2001) (Practice Book § 43-22 does not authorize vacatur of convictions; focus must be on sentencing)
- State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152 (Conn. App. 2008) (motion under § 43-22 that in reality attacks conviction is a collateral attack and outside trial court jurisdiction)
- State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785 (Conn. 2001) (trial court and appellate courts have power to correct an illegal sentence; court merged murder and felony-murder convictions under § 43-22)
- State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699 (Conn. 1990) (merger of convictions when lesser and greater offenses arise from same conduct)
- State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (Conn. 2013) (revisions to merger/vacatur approach for lesser/greater convictions)
- State v. Francis, 322 Conn. 247 (Conn. 2016) (characterizes § 43-22 as a narrow, expedited remedy focused on sentencing; discusses appointed counsel procedures)
- State v. Santiago, 145 Conn. App. 374 (Conn. App. 2013) (Appellate Court held § 43-22 could be used for double jeopardy claims affecting convictions — decision the dissent views as inconsistent and problematic)