State v. Pecor, 179 Conn. App. 864

Background

Gary Alan Pecor pled guilty (Alford plea) to second-degree robbery on June 7, 2011; court sentenced him to 2 years incarceration plus 8 years special parole; the 2-year incarceration ran concurrently with another sentence.
Pecor moved on May 7, 2013 to correct an illegal sentence, arguing special parole was improper because his definite sentence did not exceed two years under § 54-125e(a).
On September 12, 2014 the court conceded the original sentence was illegal, vacated it, and resentenced Pecor to 2 years and 1 day incarceration plus 7 years and 364 days special parole; Pecor received credit for time already served; no appeal followed.
On January 15, 2016 Pecor filed a second motion to correct, arguing the court lacked authority to increase the lawful 2-year incarceration (only the illegal special parole should have been altered) and that adding one extra day violated double jeopardy/due process.
The trial court dismissed the second motion as moot and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning Pecor was collaterally estopped from relitigating the 2014 judgment; Pecor appealed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Pecor's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the second motion (mootness/collateral estoppel)	The 2014 judgment resolved the illegality; Pecor’s attack is collateral and moot; court lacks jurisdiction	The 2016 motion challenges the new 2014 sentence and its manner of imposition under Practice Book §43-22; relief remains available	Court erred to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; motion was not moot and collateral estoppel does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction
Whether res judicata bars Pecor’s challenge to the 2014 resentencing	The 2014 proceedings disposed of the issue; Pecor should have appealed then	The 2014 resentencing produced a new sentence that had not been litigated on the merits; claims address new deprivation of liberty	Res judicata does not bar Pecor; the 2014 resentencing claims were not fully and fairly litigated beforehand
Whether adding one day of incarceration violated double jeopardy/due process	The resentencing corrected an illegal sentence; state urged remand for merits	Pecor contends increasing incarceration (even one day) after he served the sentence violates double jeopardy and due process	Court declined to resolve merits on appeal because factual record is inadequate and factual findings may bear on the constitutional claim; merits remanded for an evidentiary hearing
Appropriate remedy on appeal	Deny motion as precluded or uphold 2014 judgment	Direct resentencing to original 2-year term and removal of special parole	Court reversed dismissal and remanded for a hearing on the merits rather than issuing resentencing directions itself

Key Cases Cited

State v. Boyd, 272 Conn. 72 (2004) (§54-125e applies only when definite sentence exceeds two years)
State v. Ruiz, 173 Conn. App. 608 (2017) (Practice Book §43-22 allows trial court to correct illegal sentences; review is plenary)
State v. T.D., 286 Conn. 353 (2008) (collateral estoppel does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction)
State v. Osuch, 124 Conn. App. 572 (2010) (res judicata bars repetitious claims that were finally decided on the merits)
State v. Brundage, 148 Conn. App. 550 (2014) (discussing res judicata in criminal constitutional claims; balance finality and liberty interests)
State v. Gaskin, 7 Conn. App. 131 (1986) (Practice Book §43-22 permits correction of illegal sentences at any time; illegal sentences always correctable in interest of justice)
State v. Tabone, 292 Conn. 417 (2009) (due process framework for correcting illegal sentences; increase is permissible only if not more severe than original)