State v. Pierce
129 Conn. App. 516
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Pierce appeals a trial court ruling dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence.
- The 1999 presentence report (which cited information from a prior 1996 report) was used at sentencing without a new consent from Pierce for reusing confidential treatment data.
- Pierce argued the 1999 report improperly relied on confidential material from the 1996 report, which was obtained under waivers signed during an unrelated case.
- The sentencing court reviewed the 1999 report, conducted a hearing, and ultimately sentenced Pierce to a thirty-year term with five years’ probation while making a sexual-offender registration finding.
- Pierce later contended Parker v. Connecticut Supreme Court expanded the grounds for challenging sentencing, but the trial court and appellate court concluded there was no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the motion under Practice Book § 43-22.
- The Superior Court ultimately held it lacked jurisdiction, adopting Parker’s framework for determining when a challenge to a sentence can be entertained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the motion | Pierce contends §43-22 grants jurisdiction | State contends Parker limits or defeats jurisdiction | No jurisdiction; court correctly dismissed |
| Whether Parker expands McNellis to include state-law procedures ensuring fairness in sentencing | Parker extends McNellis to confidentiality protections | Protection of confidentiality does not create jurisdictional grounds | Parker does not confer jurisdiction here; confidentiality issue not jurisdictional |
| Whether confidential treatment records could be reused in the 1999 report without Pierce’s new consent | Reuse violated confidentiality and consent requirements | Probation department acted within reporting framework | Material issue not within §43-22 scope; no basis to reverse for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether any error in considering the 1999 report was harmless | Error invalidates the sentence | Any error was harmless given the record | Harmless error analysis not reached due to lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Olson, 115 Conn.App. 806 (2009) (jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence under §43-22; review is plenary)
- State v. McNellis, 15 Conn.App. 416 (1988) (definitions of illegal sentence and powers to correct; narrowing grounds)
- Parker v. State, 295 Conn. 825 (2010) (expands §43-22 analyses to include due-process-type concerns; informs jurisdictional limits)