189 Conn. App. 144
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Abdul Mukhtaar was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years; the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
- In 2018 Mukhtaar filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence (Practice Book § 43-22), alleging judicial bias, failure to order a competency exam, that the same judge presided at probable cause and trial, inconsistent witness statements, lost/destroyed police evidence, and implicit racial bias.
- The trial court held a hearing, considered additional assertions raised by Mukhtaar, and dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction because the claims attacked pretrial and trial proceedings rather than the sentencing proceeding.
- Mukhtaar appealed the dismissal, arguing the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider his § 43-22 motion.
- The Appellate Court reviewed de novo whether a motion to correct falls within the scope of Practice Book § 43-22 and whether the alleged defects related to the sentencing proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction to hear Mukhtaar’s § 43-22 motion | State: Claims attacked pretrial/trial, not sentencing, so § 43-22 does not apply | Mukhtaar: Alleged defects (bias, lack of competency exam, lost evidence, same judge) render sentence illegal | Court: Dismissal affirmed—claims relate to conviction/trial, not sentencing, so no jurisdiction under § 43-22 |
| Whether judicial/implicit bias claims could form basis for § 43-22 relief | State: Bias claims not limited to sentencing and do not show an illegal sentence or illegal manner of sentencing | Mukhtaar: Bias (including racial implicit bias) made sentence illegal | Court: Bias allegations did not attack sentencing proceeding or fit illegal-sentence categories; jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether failure to order competency exam implicated sentencing-stage rights | State: Competency claims raised concern pretrial/trial competency, not sentencing-stage inquiry | Mukhtaar: Lack of competency examination rendered sentence illegal | Court: Competency claims as pled were not limited to sentencing; thus outside § 43-22 jurisdiction (note: competency at sentencing would be within § 43-22 if properly limited to sentencing) |
| Whether inconsistent witness statements or lost/destroyed evidence make sentence illegal | State: Those allegations challenge conviction/trial fairness, not the sentence itself | Mukhtaar: Inconsistent evidence and lost evidence invalidate sentence | Court: Such claims attack the underlying conviction, not the sentence; dismissal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280 (Conn.) (Supreme Court decision affirming defendant’s conviction)
- State v. Anderson, 187 Conn. App. 569 (Conn. App.) (discussing scope of Practice Book § 43-22 and definitions of illegal sentence)
- State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 (Conn.) (treatment of sentences imposed in an illegal manner)
- State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825 (Conn.) (sentencing procedure and related due process principles)
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (Conn.) (background on trial court jurisdiction post-sentencing)