State v. Vivo, 197 Conn.App. 363

In 1994 Vivo was convicted of murder, first‑degree assault, and a § 53‑202k firearm enhancement; the trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 75 years.
The jury and other trial evidence included eyewitness testimony and rapid‑fire wounds; testimony described weapons including Uzi‑type and MAC‑11 style firearms.
On collateral review this court held § 53‑202k is a sentence‑enhancement provision (not a separate offense) and directed vacatur and resentencing regarding the § 53‑202k conviction; subsequent proceedings produced a 75‑year effective sentence and amended mittimus.
Vivo repeatedly filed motions to correct an illegal sentence arguing the § 53‑202k enhancement was inapplicable because the weapon used was a MAC‑11 (an "assault weapon" exempt from § 53‑202k).
In 2018 Vivo filed another motion to correct; the trial court (Devlin, J.) dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction, concluding the motion attacked the underlying conviction/evidence rather than the legality of the sentencing proceeding.
Vivo appealed; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding a motion to correct an illegal sentence is not the proper vehicle to relitigate sufficiency of the evidence or challenge the underlying conviction.

Issue	State's Argument	Vivo's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain Vivo's motion to correct a sentence that he contends was illegally enhanced under § 53‑202k because he used a MAC‑11 (an assault weapon exempt from § 53‑202k).	The claim attacks the sufficiency of the evidence/underlying conviction, not the sentencing proceeding; thus it is a collateral attack and the court lacks jurisdiction under Practice Book § 43‑22.	The § 53‑202k enhancement is illegal because the record shows he used a MAC‑11 (an assault weapon), so the sentence as enhanced is illegal and subject to correction.	Affirmed dismissal: claim challenges the conviction/evidence, not the sentence or sentencing proceeding; a motion to correct an illegal sentence was the wrong procedural vehicle and the court lacked jurisdiction.

State v. Thompson, 190 Conn. App. 660 (Conn. App. 2019) (insufficient‑evidence claims attack conviction and are not cognizable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence)
State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147 (Conn. 2007) (trial court must be attacking sentencing proceeding itself to have jurisdiction post‑execution of sentence)
State v. St. Louis, 146 Conn. App. 461 (Conn. App. 2013) (four categories of claims that permit post‑sentence correction under Practice Book § 43‑22)
State v. Robles, 169 Conn. App. 127 (Conn. App. 2016) (trial court loses jurisdiction once defendant begins serving sentence except as authorized by statute or common‑law exception)
State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581 (Conn. App. 2010) (insufficient‑evidence claims are not challenges to sentence legality)
Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction, 90 Conn. App. 167 (Conn. App. 2005) (prior habeas appeal addressing the § 53‑202k conviction as a sentencing enhancement)
State v. Vivo, 241 Conn. 665 (Conn. 1997) (Supreme Court decision recounting the underlying facts of the shootings)