State v. Polanco, 301 Conn. 716

Polanco was convicted in 2006 of sale of narcotics (§21a-277(a)) and sale within 1500 feet of a school (§21a-278a(b)).
Statutes prescribe penalties: first-time §21a-277(a) up to 15 years; §21a-278a(b) mandatory 3 years, non-suspendable, consecutive to §21a-277(a).
Trial court sentenced Polanco: 10 years for §21a-277(a) suspended after 4 years; 3 years for §21a-278a(b) consecutive, total 13 years, executed with 7 years suspended and 3 years’ probation.
Appellate Court affirmed conviction; later, in 2009, Polanco moved to correct an illegal sentence claiming improper suspension without probation and improper aggregation.
Trial court denied the motion; argument centered on whether the 3-year §21a-278a(b) term could be added to the 10-year §21a-277(a) sentence or had to be imposed separately.
This Court affirms the trial court, holding that the 3-year minimum is mandatory, non-suspendable, and must be added in a manner consistent with the statute and governing jurisprudence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
McMahon applicability to §21a-277(a) and §21a-278a(b)?	Polanco argues McMahon does not apply because §53-202k is a sentence enhancement, not the §21a provisions.	State argues McMahon applies, supporting aggregation/consecutive treatment of the mandatory term.	McMahon may apply or be persuasive in logic; this Court ultimately affirms the trial court’s approach.
Whether §21a-278a(b) is a separate offense or a sentence enhancement?	Argues §21a-278a(b) is a separate offense, not a sentence enhancement.	States it is a separate offense or a permissible enhancement under applicable law.	Assuming separate offense for argument, §21a-278a(b) language requires a non-suspendable, consecutive term.
Whether the trial court correctly aggregated the 3-year term with the §21a-277(a) sentence?	Claims the 3-year term should attach to the suspended portion, not added to the total ten years.	The three-year term must be in addition and consecutive to the §21a-277(a) term.	The court correctly imposed the 3-year mandatory term in addition to and consecutive to the ten-year sentence.
Double jeopardy contention?	Convictions for both offenses could violate double jeopardy if punished for same conduct.	Polanco did not claim double jeopardy; cases cited show separate offenses may yield multiple penalties.	Double jeopardy challenge not dispositive; convictions involve separate offenses, thus permissible.

State v. McMahon, 257 Conn. 544, 778 A.2d 847 (2001) (upheld addition of a mandatory consecutive sentence to suspended and total sentence)
State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 698 A.2d 297 (1997) (discussed § 53-202k as a sentence enhancement)
State v. Player, 58 Conn. App. 592, 753 A.2d 947 (2000) (concluded §21a-278a(b) is a separate substantive offense)
State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477, 668 A.2d 682 (1995) (language of § 21a-278a(b) requires intent near school; separate offense view)