179 Conn. App. 1
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- In 1996 Abdul Mukhtaar, age 20, shot and killed a victim; he was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years in 1997.
- In 2015 Mukhtaar filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his brain was underdeveloped at the time of the crime and he was denied a competency hearing; he sought to rely on the rationale of Miller v. Alabama and related juvenile‑sentencing cases.
- Mukhtaar also moved to allow a psychologist to testify about his mental state at the time of the offense.
- The trial court denied the motion to correct, concluding Roper, Graham, and Miller apply only to defendants under 18 at the time of the crime, and denied the expert motion as moot.
- On appeal Mukhtaar argued Miller’s brain‑science rationale should extend to adults whose mental age resembles juveniles and that lack of a competency hearing rendered his sentence illegal.
- The Appellate Court reversed the denial and directed dismissal of the motion to correct for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because Miller and its progeny are limited to offenders under 18; exclusion of the expert was not erroneous given the jurisdictional defect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mukhtaar) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller and its reasoning require consideration of youth/immaturity for a 20‑year‑old | Mukhtaar: brain science underlying Miller applies to adults whose mental age approximates juveniles; sentencing was illegal without that consideration | State: Miller and related cases expressly apply only to offenders under 18; no extension to adults | Held: Miller limited to those under 18; no mandatory consideration for a 20‑year‑old |
| Whether failure to hold a competency hearing rendered the sentence illegal | Mukhtaar: lack of competency hearing meant he could not demonstrate immaturity to invoke Miller; thus sentence illegal | State: No record indication Mukhtaar appeared incompetent; competency claim insufficient to state a colorable Miller claim | Held: No colorable claim; trial court lacked jurisdiction under Practice Book §43‑22 to entertain motion |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying admission of expert testimony | Mukhtaar: expert evidence would show immature brain at time of offense and support his claim | State: Expert irrelevant if Miller does not apply; court’s jurisdictional defect mooted evidence | Held: Because court lacked jurisdiction over the motion, exclusion of expert testimony was not erroneous |
| Whether a motion to correct was the proper procedural vehicle | Mukhtaar: used §43‑22 to raise Miller‑based claim retroactively | State: §43‑22 review for Miller claims is limited to juvenile offenders | Held: §43‑22 relief under Miller limited to those under 18; Mukhtaar’s motion failed to present a colorable claim and must be dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (mandatory life without parole for those under 18 violates the Eighth Amendment; sentencing must account for youth)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (death penalty unconstitutional for juvenile offenders)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (life without parole for nonhomicide juvenile offenders disproportionate)
- State v. Taylor G., 315 Conn. 734 (2015) (summarizes Roper/Graham/Miller and juvenile‑sentencing principles)
- State v. Riley, 315 Conn. 637 (2015) (trial courts must consider chronological age and hallmark features of youth under Miller)
- State v. Delgado, 323 Conn. 801 (2016) (Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a §43‑22 motion that does not state a colorable claim)
- Haughey v. Commissioner of Correction, 173 Conn. App. 559 (2017) (rejects expanding Miller to offenders 18 or older)