159 Conn.App. 502
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- On May 5, 2012, Brianna Washington (victim) was killed when defendant Justin Skipwith, who had been stabbed, struck her with his vehicle.
- On April 2, 2013, Skipwith pleaded nolo contendere to second‑degree manslaughter (motor vehicle) and DUI; he was sentenced to 10 years, execution suspended after 2, with 3 years probation.
- Victim’s mother Tabatha Cornell obtained counsel who notified prosecutors of his representation and opposition to an Alford/nolo plea; counsel was not contacted before the plea disposition.
- Cornell moved to vacate Skipwith’s sentence and filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis, asserting violations of Connecticut’s victim’s rights amendment (Conn. Const., art. I, § 8(b) as amended by XXVII/XXIX).
- The trial court dismissed both filings, holding it lacked jurisdiction to vacate the sentence and that coram nobis was unavailable where statutes (notably Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑223) supply the governing scheme.
- Connecticut Appellate Court dismissed Cornell’s writ of error, concluding no statutory or common‑law remedy authorized a victim to vacate a criminal sentence based on asserted victim‑rights violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a victim may move to vacate a defendant’s sentence for violation of the state victim’s rights amendment | Cornell: victim’s constitutional rights to notice/presence were violated; she seeks vacation of sentence (not conviction) under the amendment | State: amendment is not self‑executing; statutes (including § 54‑223) forbid vacating convictions/sentences for victim‑rights violations; court lacks jurisdiction | Held: Dismissed — no enabling legislation and § 54‑223 bars such relief; motion properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether a nonparty victim may obtain coram nobis relief to vacate a defendant’s judgment for victim‑rights violations | Cornell: coram nobis is available because she has no adequate legal remedy | State: coram nobis is an ancient remedy for parties; here statutory scheme and § 54‑223 foreclose the relief sought | Held: Dismissed — coram nobis not available to grant the requested relief; remedy is precluded by statute |
| Whether the court can create a judicially‑crafted remedy to enforce victim’s rights absent legislation | Cornell: court can fashion remedies (analogy to exclusionary rule and Binette) | State: amendment expressly contemplates legislative implementation; judicial creation of remedy would usurp legislature | Held: Rejected — inappropriate to create remedy where constitution requires legislative action and legislature has acted to prohibit relief |
| Whether federal or other states’ authorities (e.g., CVRA, Oregon) support victim’s right to vacate sentence | Cornell: cites federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act and State v. Barrett (Oregon) | State: federal law and Oregon differ; federal CVRA provides procedures not present in Connecticut; Barrett rests on different constitutional/statutory text and enforcement scheme | Held: Not persuasive — Connecticut lacks analogous statutory enforcement procedures; those authorities are distinguishable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gault, 304 Conn. 330 (Conn. 2012) (victim’s rights amendment is not self‑executing; requires legislative implementation)
- State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (Conn. 2007) (limits on jurisdiction to correct sentences once defendant is in custody)
- State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 (Conn. 2007) (Practice Book § 43‑22 and narrow circumstances to correct illegal sentences)
- State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825 (Conn. 2010) (defendant’s procedural sentencing rights that permit post‑sentence review)
- State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356 (Conn. 2009) (writ of error coram nobis is extraordinary, available only where no adequate remedy exists)
- State v. McCahill, 261 Conn. 492 (Conn. 2002) (question whether victim may seek writ of error for victim‑rights violations need not be resolved where other grounds dispose)
- Binette v. Sabo, 244 Conn. 23 (Conn. 1998) (recognition of private cause of action under state constitution in a different context)
- North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (validity of plea despite protestation of innocence; cited re: Alford pleas)
- State v. Barrett, 350 Or. 390 (Or. 2011) (Oregon Supreme Court allowed resentencing for victim‑notice violation under Oregon constitution and statutes; distinguishable)