190 Conn. App. 660
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Earl V. Thompson was convicted after jury trial of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and first‑degree kidnapping; total effective sentence 45 years. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal (State v. Thompson).
- Thompson (initially pro se, later counsel McKay) filed motions under Practice Book § 43‑22 seeking to "correct an illegal sentence." Pro se filings included a double jeopardy claim but were not considered by the court; McKay’s filed motion focused on insufficiency of the evidence for the conspiracy conviction.
- McKay argued the conspiracy conviction should be vacated because the state failed to prove (1) an agreement to threaten the victim with a gun upon entry or (2) that Thompson intentionally aided the codefendant—i.e., a sufficiency‑of‑the‑evidence challenge to the conviction.
- The trial court dismissed McKay’s motion, holding it was a collateral attack on the conviction (a sufficiency claim) and therefore outside the court’s jurisdiction under § 43‑22 after execution of sentence.
- Thompson appealed the dismissal, arguing the trial court improperly concluded it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction under Practice Book § 43‑22 to grant relief where the motion challenged sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction (conspiracy) after sentence execution | State: court lacks jurisdiction to entertain collateral sufficiency challenges in a § 43‑22 motion after sentence execution | Thompson: his § 43‑22 motion could vacate the conspiracy conviction (insufficiency) and thus correct an illegal sentence | Court held the motion attacked the conviction (sufficiency), not the sentence or sentencing proceeding; therefore court lacked jurisdiction and dismissal was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 (2018) (motion to correct an illegal sentence must attack sentencing proceeding, not trial/conviction)
- State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581 (2010) (insufficiency claims do not concern sentence legality and are outside § 43‑22 jurisdiction)
- State v. Koslik, 116 Conn. App. 693 (2009) (same—collateral attack on conviction is not a § 43‑22 remedy)
- State v. Mukhtaar, 189 Conn. App. 144 (2019) (summarizing that post‑execution § 43‑22 jurisdiction requires challenge to sentencing proceeding)