169 Conn. App. 127
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Rolando Robles pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine in 2007 to first‑degree kidnapping, attempted first‑degree kidnapping, and fourth‑degree sexual assault; he was sentenced to 15 years (execution suspended after time served) and 20 years probation.
- Robles later filed motions arguing that, in light of State v. Salamon, his kidnapping convictions were invalid and that his sentence/plea disposition therefore were void or subject to correction under Practice Book § 43‑22.
- The trial court dismissed his motion to correct an illegal sentence for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, reasoning Robles attacked his conviction rather than the sentencing proceeding; it also dismissed his coram nobis petition as untimely.
- Robles appealed, asserting due process and other constitutional violations and arguing the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to hear his § 43‑22 motion.
- The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43‑22 is limited to certain sentencing defects and does not provide jurisdiction to collaterally attack the validity of the underlying conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Robles) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over Robles’ motion to correct an illegal sentence | The motion attacked the conviction, not the sentence/sentencing proceeding, so the court lacked jurisdiction under § 43‑22 | The Salamon line of cases rendered his kidnapping convictions invalid, so his sentence/disposition was illegal and correctable under § 43‑22 | Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the § 43‑22 motion; affirmed dismissal |
| Whether dismissal of the § 43‑22 motion violated Robles’ federal/state due process rights | Due process claim is a collateral challenge to conviction and not cognizable in a § 43‑22 proceeding | Denial of jurisdiction deprived him of procedural and substantive due process regarding an illegal sentence | Due process contention rejected as an impermissible collateral attack |
| Whether Salamon invalidates Robles’ kidnapping convictions and thus supports relief in this proceeding | The state contended merits must be raised in the proper collateral vehicle (not § 43‑22) and did not concede invalidity | Robles argued Salamon showed the kidnapping convictions could not stand and thus his sentence was illegal | Appellate court did not reach merits; held Salamon‑based challenge must be pursued by an appropriate post‑conviction remedy, not § 43‑22 |
| Whether the alternative petition for a writ of error coram nobis was timely | State argued the coram nobis petition was untimely | Robles alternatively sought coram nobis relief as a fallback | Trial court correctly found the coram nobis petition untimely; Robles did not press that issue on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (2008) (clarifies when kidnapping may be charged in conjunction with another offense: requires additional restraint of victim beyond that necessary to commit the other crime)
- State v. Brescia, 122 Conn. App. 601 (2010) (motion to correct illegal sentence under § 43‑22 cannot be used to collaterally attack the validity of an underlying conviction)
- State v. St. Louis, 146 Conn. App. 461 (2013) (§ 43‑22 jurisdiction requires the sentencing proceeding, not the conviction, be the subject of the attack)
- State v. Monge, 165 Conn. App. 36 (2016) (trial court loses jurisdiction once sentence is executed except as expressly authorized; common law limits on post‑sentence relief)
- State v. Francis, 322 Conn. 247 (2016) (discusses limits on sentence‑correction motions and scope of § 43‑22)
- State v. Casiano, 122 Conn. App. 61 (2010) (reiterates that § 43‑22 is not a vehicle to challenge the underlying conviction)
- State v. Koslik, 116 Conn. App. 693 (2009) (subject matter jurisdiction review is plenary in criminal appeals)