190 Conn. App. 462
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Albert Edward Nalewajk pleaded guilty to possession of narcotics with intent to sell (non–drug-dependent) and first degree failure to appear; court imposed a 10-year sentence, execution suspended after 5 years, plus 5 years probation.
- Defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence; the trial court dismissed the motion.
- Defendant appealed the dismissal on May 10, 2016; the appeal was stayed pending resolution of related Supreme Court decisions and later reinstated for briefing and argument.
- Defense counsel notified the appellate court that Nalewajk died during the pendency of the appeal and filed a suggestion of death with a death certificate.
- The appellate court sua sponte asked the parties to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as moot; the court heard oral argument on March 6, 2019.
- The court concluded that the defendant’s death rendered the appeal moot because no practical relief could be granted and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot because the defendant died | State: The appeal is moot; no relief possible after death | Nalewajk: (via counsel) raised the sentencing legality claim despite death; counsel suggested issues might still warrant review | Court: Appeal is moot; dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether counsel could or should withdraw the appeal after death | State: Withdrawal was appropriate to conserve resources | Defense: Counsel implied they could not withdraw because client could not communicate preferences after death | Court: Counsel could and should have withdrawn under Practice Book §63-9; death ends client decision-making obligations |
| Whether any precedent permits continuing appeal after defendant's death | State: Precedent requires dismissal when relief is impossible | Defense: Argued issues might remain relevant | Court: Followed precedent dismissing criminal appeals upon defendant’s death |
| Whether court must address merits despite mootness | State: No, court lacks jurisdiction over moot matters | Defense: Sought reasons not to dismiss | Court: Declined to reach merits; dismissed appeal as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bostwick, 251 Conn. 117 (1999) (discussing dismissal of appeals as moot when defendant dies)
- State v. Trantolo, 209 Conn. 169 (1988) (mootness and dismissal of criminal appeals upon death)
- State v. Corbeil, 237 Conn. 919 (1996) (dismissing appeal as moot after defendant’s death)
- State v. Allan, 329 Conn. 815 (2018) (related Supreme Court decision considered during stay)
- State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 (2018) (related Supreme Court decision considered during stay)