186 Conn. App. 770
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- On March 24, 2016 Mark Young was arrested in Connecticut for OUI, evading responsibility, speeding, and lacking minimum insurance; a Part B information alleged a prior 2011 Rhode Island conviction for driving under the influence.
- On October 11, 2016 Young pleaded guilty to OUI (as a second offender based on the Rhode Island conviction), evading responsibility, and the Part B allegation; plea canvass recited facts of the arrest and the prior Rhode Island conviction.
- New counsel filed a motion to withdraw the guilty pleas, arguing (a) the Rhode Island disposition was not a conviction, (b) the Rhode Island record was expunged before sentencing, and (c) the Rhode Island statute’s elements differ from Connecticut’s § 14-227a.
- The trial court denied the motion after finding the Rhode Island disposition was a conviction, the expungement occurred after Young’s conduct giving rise to the Connecticut arrest (so the prior conviction was still effective for enhancement), and the statutes are substantially similar.
- At sentencing the court imposed an aggregate three-year term (execution suspended after five months) for the OUI-second-offense count (with 120 mandatory days) and concurrent one-year suspended incarceration on evading responsibility; the state conceded the three-year OUI term exceeded the statutory maximum for a second-offense OUI.
Issues
| Issue | Young’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a factual basis for Young’s guilty plea as a second offender (Part B allegation) | The Rhode Island disposition was not a qualifying conviction; plea lacked factual basis | Part B information and plea canvass gave sufficient notice and factual basis; Rhode Island disposition was a conviction | Court: Plea canvass + Part B info provided adequate factual basis; denial of motion to withdraw affirmed |
| Whether the Rhode Island nolo contendere disposition was a conviction | The complaint is ambiguous; special conditions imply probation and §12-18-3 could negate conviction | The complaint shows mandatory-minimum sanctions (fine, license loss, community restitution, counseling) consistent with a conviction; no evidence of probation/completion | Court: Rhode Island disposition was a conviction; defendant failed to show it was probationary/expungement before offense date |
| Whether the Rhode Island statute’s elements are substantially the same as Connecticut’s §14-227a(a) | Differences in definitions ("operation", "motor vehicle") and Rhode Island procedure make statutes dissimilar | Both statutes require operation while under the influence or BAC ≥ .08; definitions are substantially the same for enhancement | Court: Elements are substantially the same; trial court correctly concluded similarity at motion hearing |
| Whether the imposed sentence was legal (reliance on inaccurate info / exceeded statutory maximum) | Sentence relied on inaccurate information and exceeded statutory maximum | Prior conviction was valid for enhancement; but state concedes sentence exceeded statutory maximum | Court: No reliance on inaccurate info (prior conviction valid); but three-year term exceeded the two-year maximum for second-offense OUI — sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing under original plea terms |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Simpson, 329 Conn. 820 (Conn. 2018) (standards for plea withdrawal and canvass sufficiency)
- Paulsen v. Manson, 203 Conn. 484 (Conn. 1987) (no duty to establish factual basis absent notice of need)
- State v. Greene, 274 Conn. 134 (Conn. 2005) (plea acceptance and later uses; court need not anticipate later uses)
- State v. Tenay, 156 Conn. App. 792 (Conn. App. 2015) (timing rule for §14-227a enhancements focuses on time of conduct)
- State v. Commins, 276 Conn. 503 (Conn. 2005) (comparison of out-of-state statutes for substantial similarity is a question of law)
- State v. Haight, 279 Conn. 546 (Conn. 2006) (definition of "operation" under §14-227a)