STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. TYRICE D. EDGE
(AC 34903)
Alvord, Bear and Borden, Js.*
Argued April 22—officially released May 20, 2014
(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Damiani, J. [judgment]; Cremins, J. [motion to withdraw plea].)
******************************************************
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 opinion. 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. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the “officially released” date.
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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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 Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
******************************************************
Carlos E. Candal, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Emily Graner Sexton, special deputy assistant state‘s attorney, with whom, on the
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The defendant, Tyrice D. Edge, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The dispositive question is whether the court improperly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of that motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The relevant facts are undisputed. In September, 2011, the defendant was arrested and charged with one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant on May 11, 2012, pleaded guilty, pursuant to the Alford doctrine,1 to one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of
The defendant thereafter filed a motion to withdraw that guilty plea on May 21, 2012. The court heard argument on the motion on June 27, 2012, during which counsel for the defendant stated that “[e]ssentially, there are two bases for the withdrawal of the plea. One is that [the defendant] advises me that he was not aware that he could not withdraw his plea once the plea was accepted. Additionally, and more importantly, [the defendant] wrote me a letter recently, indicating that at the time that he entered the pleas he was under the influence of some medication that was administered to him at Walker Correctional Institution, that he suffered from periods of anxiety, depression, confusion, delusions, disorientation, and many other side effects, making him unable to understand fully the ramifications of the guilty plea.” After noting various affirmative responses of the defendant and his counsel during the plea canvass, the court ultimately concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Accordingly, the court dismissed the motion to withdraw, and this appeal followed.
On appeal, the defendant claims that his plea “was not knowingly and intelligently
A determination regarding a trial court‘s subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law over which our review is plenary. State v. DeVivo, 106 Conn. App. 641, 644, 942 A.2d 1066 (2008). It is well established that “the jurisdiction of the sentencing court terminates once a defendant‘s sentence has begun, and, therefore, that court may no longer take any action affecting a defendant‘s sentence unless it expressly has been authorized to act.” Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30, 37, 779 A.2d 80 (2001). Likewise, Practice Book § 39-26 provides in relevant part that “[a] defendant may not withdraw his or her plea after the conclusion of the proceeding at which the sentence was imposed.” As our Supreme Court has explained, “once a defendant‘s sentence is executed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain any claims regarding the validity of that plea in the absence of a statute or rule of practice to the contrary.” State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356, 368, 968 A.2d 367 (2009); see also State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764, 776 n.14, 894 A.2d 963 (2006) (“Practice Book § 39-26 merely recognizes the general or common-law grant of jurisdiction, regulates the procedure by which that jurisdiction may be invoked, and acknowledges that, absent a legislative grant, jurisdiction does not continue indefinitely, once invoked, but, rather, terminates with the conclusion of the proceeding at which the sentence is imposed“). This bedrock principle applies with equal force to motions to withdraw guilty pleas predicated, like the one in the present case, on an alleged deprivation of a defendant‘s “constitutional right to due process of law because his original plea . . . was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary . . . .” State v. Dyous, 307 Conn. 299, 334-35, 53 A.3d 153 (2012). Bound by that precedent, we conclude that the court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the defendant‘s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
The judgment is affirmed.
* The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.