State v. Tabone, 23 A.3d 689

This is the Connecticut Supreme Court's third review of Tabone after remands for resentencing arising from illegal sentence issues.
Tabone pled guilty in 2000 to multiple offenses and was sentenced to concurrent terms; the sentence violated § 54-128(c) and was deemed illegal.
On remand, the trial court resentenced to a total 20 years with ten years' execution suspended and ten years of probation, raising concerns about the aggregate package theory.
Tabone II remanded solely for resentencing consistent with Raucci and Miranda; the court indicated a potential sentence of ten years incarceration followed by nine years of special parole, leaving final decision to the trial court.
After remand, Tabone moved to withdraw his pleas; the trial court denied the motion on its merits.
The appellate issue is whether the motion to withdraw pledges was within the remand scope and whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear it.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the motion to withdraw pleas within the remand scope?	Tabone argues remand allowed broader relief including plea withdrawal.	State contends the remand limited the trial court to resentencing only.	Beyond scope; remand limited to resentencing.
Did the trial court have subject matter jurisdiction to decide the motion to withdraw pleas?	Tabone asserts court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the motion on remand.	State argues lack of jurisdiction because the remand did not authorize such proceedings.	Lacked subject matter jurisdiction; proper remedy is dismissal.

State v. Raucci, 21 Conn. App. 557 (1990) (aggregate package theory for remand sentencing)
State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 (2002) (adopts aggregate package theory for remand sentencing)
State v. Avcollie, 188 Conn. 626 (1982) (remand scope and subject matter jurisdiction principles)
Tabone II, 292 Conn. 417 (2009) (remand for resentencing and scope limitations under Raucci/Miranda)