State v. Wade, 178 Conn. App. 459

Defendant Sidney Wade was convicted by a jury of two counts of sale of narcotics, two counts of possession with intent to sell (all affirmed on appeal), and manslaughter in the first degree (reversed on appeal).
On direct appeal this court reversed the first‑degree manslaughter conviction, directed that it be modified to manslaughter in the second degree, and ordered resentencing.
At resentencing the trial court vacated all prior sentences, modified the judgment to reflect manslaughter in the second degree, and restructured the sentencing package: increased each narcotics term and ordered them consecutive to a ten‑year manslaughter term, yielding a new aggregate sentence of 23 years.
The defendant argued this resentencing violated double jeopardy (and related due process/Apprendi/Alleyne claims), asserting an expectation of finality in the narcotics sentences that were not reversed.
The trial court denied the motion to correct an illegal sentence; the Connecticut Supreme Court previously affirmed the resentencing on direct appeal, and the Appellate Court here relied on controlling precedent in denying the double jeopardy claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did resentencing the affirmed narcotics counts after a partial reversal violate double jeopardy?	State: Resentencing following partial reversal is permitted under the aggregate package theory; no double jeopardy.	Wade: He had an expectation of finality in the narcotics sentences; increasing them on remand constituted multiple punishments.	No double jeopardy violation; aggregate package theory allows restructuring when defendant appeals and part of the package is vacated.

State v. LaFleur, 156 Conn. App. 289 (Conn. App. 2015) (rejected double jeopardy claim where resentencing followed partial reversal and remand)
State v. Wade, 297 Conn. 262 (Conn. 2010) (Supreme Court affirmed trial court’s authority to restructure sentencing package on remand)
State v. Tabone, 292 Conn. 417 (Conn. 2009) (trial court may refashion entire sentence within original package if entire term not served)
State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 (Conn. 2002) (adopted aggregate package theory for resentencing after partial vacatur)
Pennsylvania v. Goldhammer, 474 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1985) (United States Supreme Court recognized that resentencing on other convictions is permissible following partial reversal)
United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117 (U.S. 1980) (discusses expectations of finality and limits on increasing sentences on resentencing)
State v. Raucci, 21 Conn. App. 557 (Conn. App. 1990) (early articulation of aggregate package rationale: appeal calls into play validity of entire sentencing package)