172 Conn. App. 250
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Ronnie Ovesen pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine in 2009 to first‑degree sexual assault (Class B) and second‑degree strangulation.
- Original sentence: 20 years incarceration, suspended after 11.5 years, followed by 10 years probation (one‑year sentence for strangulation to run concurrently).
- In 2013, Ovesen moved to correct an illegal sentence, arguing probation was improper under State v. Victor O. I. The state conceded the original sentence was illegal.
- The trial court vacated the original sentence and resentenced Ovesen to 11.5 years incarceration followed by 8.5 years of special parole.
- On appeal, the court relied on the Connecticut Supreme Court’s subsequent clarification in Victor O. II that Victor O. I did not require special parole for every § 53a‑70 conviction and that probation is not categorically barred for Class B felonies.
- Holding: The appellate court reversed, directed vacatur of the resentencing, and ordered reinstatement of Ovesen’s original sentence because it was not illegal under the correct interpretation of Victor O. I/II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ovesen's original sentence was illegal because it imposed probation rather than special parole under § 53a‑70 | State: Original sentence illegal under Victor O. I; special parole required | Ovesen: (previously accepted concession) original sentence lawful for Class B offense | Court: Victor O. II clarifies Victor O. I did not require special parole for Class B felonies; original sentence lawful; vacated resentencing and reinstated original sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163 (explained probation prohibited and special parole was sole supervised release for a class A felony)
- State v. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239 (clarified Victor O. I; § 53a‑70 does not require special parole for all convictions)
- Blumberg Associates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, 311 Conn. 123 (discussed supervisory authority and intervening change in law)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (approval of guilty plea under the Alford doctrine)