State v. BischoffState v. Bischoff
***********************************************
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip оpinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Cоmmission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
Syllabus
The defendant, who had been convicted of the crimes of possession of narcotics ([Rev. to 2013]
Procedural History
Substitute information charging the defendant with two counts each of the crimes of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent, possession of narcotics with intent to sell and possession of nаrcotics, and with the crime of possession of less than four ounces of a cannabis-type substance, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, geographical area number two, and tried to the jury before Dennis, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of possession of less than four ounces of a cannabis-type substance and of two counts of possession of narcotics, from which the defendant appeаled to this court, which affirmed the judgment; thereafter, the Supreme Court denied the defendant‘s petition for certification to appeal; subsequently, the court, Doyle, J., dismissed the defendant‘s motion to correct аn illegal sentence, and the defendant appealed to this court. Improper form of judgment; judgment directed.
James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Emily H. Wagner, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The defendаnt, Haji Jhmalah Bischoff, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. After reviewing the record and the parties’ briefs, we conclude that the defendant‘s clаim is barred by appellate precedent. We further conclude that the form of the judgment is improper, and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment dismissing the defendant‘s motion to correct an illegal sentenсe and remand the case to the trial court with direction to render judgment denying the defendant‘s motion.
The defendant was convicted of possession of heroin in violation of
In his direct apрeal, this court considered and rejected the defendant‘s claim that he was entitled to be resentenced as a result of the legislative amendment to the crime of possession of narcotics. Specifically, we stated: “The defendant finally claims that he is entitled to resentencing on his conviction of possession of narcotics because the legislature has retroactively reclassified the violation of
On May 11, 2017, the defendant filed the present motion to correct an illegal sentence. He argued that the legislature had intended the 2015 amendment to apply retroactively. According to the defendant, the sentence imposed for his violation of
On December 22, 2017, the trial court issued a memorandum of decision dismissing the motion to correct an illegal sentence. It concluded that, in the absence of
In his principal appellate brief, the defendant acknowledges that the present case is contrоlled by State v. Moore, supra, 180 Conn. App. 116, and State v. Kalil, 314 Conn. 529, 107 A.3d 343 (2014). In Moore, this court rejected a claim that the 2015 amendment to
In the present appeal, the defendant expressly asks us to overrule State v. Kalil, supra, 314 Conn. 529, State v. Moore, supra, 180 Conn. App. 116, and State v. Bischoff, supra, 182 Conn. App. 563. We reject this invitation. First, “it is axiomatic that, [a]s an intermediate appellate court, we are bound by Supreme Court precedent and are unable to modify it . . . . [W]e are not at liberty to overrule or discard the decisions of our Supreme Court but are bound by them. . . . [I]t is not within our province to reevaluate or replace those decisions.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Montanez, 185 Conn. App. 589, 605 n.5, 197 A.3d 959 (2018); see also State v. Corver, 182 Conn. App. 622, 638 n.9, 190 A.3d 941, cert. denied, 330 Conn. 916, 193 A.3d 1211 (2018). Second, “[i]t is this court‘s policy that we cannot оverrule a decision made by another panel of this court absent en banc consideration.” State v. Joseph B., 187 Conn. App. 106, 124 n.13, A.3d (2019); State v. Carlos P., 171 Conn. App. 530, 545 n.12, 157 A.3d 723, cert. denied, 325 Conn. 912, 158 A.3d 321 (2017); see also State v. Houghtaling, 326 Conn. 330, 343, 163 A.3d 563 (2017) (Appellate Court panel appropriately recognized it was bound by that court‘s own precedent), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 138 S. Ct. 1593, 200 L. Ed. 2d 776 (2018). For these reasons,1 we conclude that the defendant‘s appeal has no merit.