168 Conn. App. 37
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Scott Palmenta pleaded guilty in 2009 to multiple felonies across two dockets and admitted to being a persistent serious felony offender under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-40(c).
- He received an aggregate effective sentence of 30 years, execution suspended after 10 years, followed by five years probation.
- In 2014 Palmenta filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing his admission and sentence enhancement as a persistent serious felony offender were improper.
- He argued § 53a-40(c)’s exemption should be read disjunctively (so he qualified for the exemption) because the conjunctive “and” is ambiguous and the rule of lenity favors him.
- The trial court denied the motion; the appellate court reviewed the statutory construction question de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exemption in § 53a-40(c) should be read conjunctively or disjunctively (i.e., whether both conditions must be met to qualify for the exemption) | State: statute’s plain language and purpose require conjunctive reading; defendant not exempt. | Palmenta: “and” is ambiguous and should be read disjunctively (or resolved by rule of lenity) so he falls within the exemption. | The court held “and” is conjunctive; both conditions are required, so the exemption does not apply to Palmenta, and his motion is denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bania v. New Hartford, 138 Conn. 172 (1951) (construed “and” disjunctively in a statutory exception concerning Sunday liquor sales)
- Commission on Hospitals & Healthcare v. Lakoff, 214 Conn. 321 (1990) (construed “prevention, diagnosis and treatment” disjunctively for statutory definition purposes)
- State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (2007) (interpreting conjunctive “and” as imposing multiple preconditions in § 53a-40(h))
- State v. Burns, 236 Conn. 18 (1996) (presumption that legislature intends reasonable, not bizarre, results in statutory interpretation)
- State v. Ledbetter, 240 Conn. 317 (1997) (rule of lenity applies only where reasonable doubt persists after full statutory construction)
- State v. Adams, 308 Conn. 263 (2013) (principles of statutory construction and review standards)