State v. Buell, 22 Conn. App. 809

Per Curiam.

The defendant in this appeal complains that the trial court lacked the ‍​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍authority to impose a sentence for the original offense that ran consecutive to the sentence for the subsequent offense1 and, that in doing so, the ‍​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍trial court violated his federal and state constitutional rights against double jeopardy.

In essence, the defendant claims that the trial court could not impose a ‍​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍sentence for a probation violation consecutive to a sentence he was then serving. This claim is without merit. This court has held to the ‍​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍contrary. See, e.g., State v. Ryerson, 20 Conn. App. 572, 576, 570 A.2d 709 (1990); State v. Gaskin, 7 Conn. App. 131, 135, 508 A.2d 40 (1986).

The judgment is affirmed.

Notes

The record reveals that the defendant had ‍​‌​‌‌​​​​​​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌​‌​‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌‍fled the jurisdiction at the time of sentencing and was sentenced in absentia.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Buell

Court Name: Connecticut Appellate Court

Date Published: Jun 27, 1990

Citations: 22 Conn. App. 809; 577 A.2d 1073; 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 254; 8552

Docket Number: 8552

Court Abbreviation: Conn. App. Ct.