193 Conn.App. 794
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant pleaded guilty in June 2012 and was sentenced in July 2012 to a total effective term of 25 years.
- At sentencing defense counsel told the court the defendant was receiving mental-health treatment, on antipsychotics, and was "calm, rational, and understood" the proceedings; a forensic psychiatrist had provided a report documenting long‑term psychotic symptoms.
- After sentencing defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence asserting (1) he was incompetent at the time of sentencing and (2) the court should have ordered a competency evaluation sua sponte; he attached Department of Correction records showing missed antipsychotic doses, intermittent auditory hallucinations, and repeated confusion about plea terms and the length of his sentence before and after sentencing.
- The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction; the majority affirmed that dismissal. Justice Sheldon (concurring in part and dissenting in part) agreed the unpreserved referral claim was not reviewable but dissented as to the dismissal, arguing the motion stated a colorable incompetence claim and should have survived.
- Central legal question: whether the motion to correct alleged a colorable claim that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner because the defendant was incompetent at sentencing (requiring the trial court to exercise jurisdiction and proceed to merits or further fact‑finding).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ward) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewability of unpreserved claim that the motion should have been referred to sentencing judge | Unpreserved; not reviewable under Golding | Claim should be reviewed | Court (majority and Sheldon) : Not reviewable under Golding (affirmed) |
| Whether motion to correct pleaded a colorable claim that defendant was incompetent at sentencing based on DOC records discovered after sentencing | Facts merely show mental illness; insufficient to overcome presumption of competence; motion not colorable | Post‑sentencing DOC records (missed meds, hallucinations, confusion about plea/sentence) create at least a possibility of incompetence | Court (majority): Motion not colorable; dismissal affirmed. Sheldon (dissent): Motion is colorable; would reverse and remand |
| Whether sentencing court had a duty to order a competency evaluation sua sponte based on the record at sentencing | No duty—record at sentencing (counsel’s assurances) did not raise reasonable doubt about competence | Court should have ordered evaluation | Both majority and Sheldon: No sua sponte duty based on the record before the sentencing court |
| Whether the statutory/ normative presumption of competence defeats a colorable motion to correct | Presumption means defendant failed to show incompetence; jurisdiction lacking | Colorability requires only a possibility, not proof; presumption does not bar jurisdiction if facts raise a possibility | Sheldon: Presumption does not prevent a colorable claim; majority relied on facts to find claim not colorable and affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1989) (framework for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims)
- In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 120 A.3d 1188 (Conn. 2015) (modification of Golding standard)
- State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770, 189 A.3d 1184 (Conn. 2018) (defines "colorable claim" standard for jurisdiction over motions to correct)
- State v. Jason B., 176 Conn. App. 236, 170 A.3d 139 (Conn. App. 2017) (explains colorability requires possibility, not certainty)
- Keller v. Beckenstein, 305 Conn. 523, 46 A.3d 102 (Conn. 2012) (presumption favoring subject‑matter jurisdiction in pleadings)
- State v. Mukhtaar, 189 Conn. App. 144, 207 A.3d 29 (Conn. App. 2019) (recognizes incompetence at sentencing as a basis to correct sentence imposed in illegal manner)
- State v. Yeaw, 162 Conn. App. 382, 131 A.3d 1172 (Conn. App. 2016) (no competency inquiry required where record did not raise reasonable doubt)
- Townsend v. Burke, 334 U.S. 736 (U.S. 1948) (reliance on materially untrue or unreliable information at sentencing can render a sentence invalid)
- State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825, 992 A.2d 1103 (Conn. 2010) (limits on subject‑matter jurisdiction for motions that do not allege error in sentencing court)