State v. Scott, 2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 553

Defendant Jason Scott pleaded guilty under Alford doctrine to attempt to commit robbery in the first degree and to conspiracy to commit robbery in 2008; total sentence 20 years with 10 years suspended and 5 years probation.
In 2011, Scott, acting pro se, filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book §43-22; no request for counsel accompanying the motion.
The trial court denied the motion, later vacated that ruling, and held a hearing where Scott filed an amended motion that included a Casiano request for appointed counsel.
The court denied the amended motion and did not address the Casiano request in its oral or written decision.
Scott filed post-judgment pleadings seeking appellate review of the Casiano request; the trial court record and appellate filings raised jurisdiction and counsel-appointment issues.
This Court held it has subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal and remanded for appointment of counsel consistent with Casiano.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction over the appeal	Scott maintains aggrieved status via denial of Casiano request.	State contends lack of final ruling on Casiano issue prevents appeal.	Court has jurisdiction over the appeal.
Whether the Casiano request was properly denied or appealable	Casiano request was implicitly denied when motion to correct was denied.	No explicit ruling on Casiano request, so no aggrievement.	Implicit denial on the motion to correct constitutes appealable aggrievement; review allowed.
Whether Scott was entitled to appointed counsel under Casiano	Casiano guarantees right to counsel for motion to correct an illegal sentence.	State disputes necessity of counsel appointment at this stage.	Remand for appointment of counsel for determining sound basis and for handling the motion and potential direct appeal.
Effect of Casiano on remand proceedings	Remand should implement Casiano's counsel-appointment remedy.	N/A or not argued separately.	Remand with direction to appoint counsel is required.

Bowden v. Commissioner of Correction, 93 Conn. App. 333 (2006) (final judgment on entire petition where some issues noted but decision implied denial)
State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 (2007) (indigent defendant's right to counsel for motion to correct an illegal sentence)
Hunt v. Guimond, 69 Conn. App. 711 (2002) (aggiievement—personal and legal interest required for appellate standing)
State v. Jimenez, 127 Conn. App. 706 (2011) (appellate review standards for post-conviction/appellate-counsel issues)
State v. Pentland, 296 Conn. 305 (2010) (addressing subject matter jurisdiction challenges for appeals)