State v. TrentState v. Trent
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Healey
The defendant went to trial before a jury under a two count information, each count of which charged him with the crime of
*596
attempted robbery in the first degree in violation of
The defendant’s claims on appeal are twofold: (1) the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions
*597
of
We note that the defendant raised neither of these claims in the trial court. Claims not raised in the trial court will not ordinarily be considered by this court. State v. Hauck, 172 Conn. 140, 148, 374 A.2d 150 (1976); State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69, 327 A.2d 576 (1973). The defendant claims, however, that he received erroneous information concerning the mandatory sentence for the crimes to which he pleaded guilty and that this allegedly erroneous information may well have had a “coercive effect” on his decision to change his plea from *598 not gnilty to guilty. In short, he alleges that his guilty pleas were not entered voluntarily and intelligently. Despite the defendant’s failure to raise these claims below, his allegations raise issues of constitutional dimension and we find that they come within the “exceptional circumstances” rule of State v. Evans, supra. We refer to the second “exceptional circumstances” in Evans which allows review where the record is sufficiently complete for us to consider the claim on the merits and the claim involves a fundamental constitutional right. See State v. Godek, 182 Conn. 353, 356, 438 A.2d 114 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1031, 101 S. Ct. 1741, 68 L. Ed. 2d 226 (1981); State v. Vasquez, 182 Conn. 242, 245-46, 438 A.2d 424 (1980); State v. Evans, supra, 70. While the record is not sufficiently complete for us to review both issues in their entirety, we extend review insofar as the record permits.
The defendant first claims that the mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of
The basic rule of statutory construction requires us to ascertain the intention of the legislature and to construe the statute in a manner that effectuates that intent. See State v. Campbell, 180 Conn. 557, 561, 429 A.2d 960 (1980); Green v. Warden, 178 Conn. 634, 637-38, 425 A.2d 128 (1979); Hurlbut v. Lemelin, 155 Conn. 68, 73, 230 A.2d 36 (1967). The intention of the legislature is found not in what it meant to say, but in the meaning of what it did say. Colli v. Real Estate Commission, 169 Conn. 445, 452, 364 A.2d 167 (1975); see Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Water Resources Commission , 162 Conn. 89, 98, 291 A.2d 721 (1971); State v. Briggs, 161 Conn. 283, 286, 287 A.2d 369 (1971). Where the statutory language is plain and unambiguous, intent is to be ascertained from the *600 language of the statute itself. Houston v. Warden, 169 Conn. 247, 251, 363 A.2d 121 (1975); Hurlbut v. Lemelin, supra, 73.
Our statutes on the subject of attempt are found in our Penal Code under that part entitled “Inchoate Offenses.” See General Statutes c. 952, part 3, §§ 53a-48 through 53a-51. The term “inchoate” means “imperfect; partial; unfinished; begun, but not completed.” See Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Ed.). Section 53a-49, which defines “criminal attempt,” embodies the “begun but not completed” rationale indigenous to an inchoate offense. Under our statutory scheme a person cannot be charged with an attempt to commit a crime, i.e., § 53a-49, without being informed against of the substantive crime which is the object of the attempt. It follows that to charge properly an attempt to commit first degree robbery, both the attempt statute, i.e. § 53a-49, and the substantive crime alleged to have been attempted must be, as they were in this case, alleged in the information.
Considerable variation is to be found among the various states concerning the authorized penalties for attempt. See LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law, c. 6, § 61, p. 452; see also Perkins, Criminal Law (2d Ed.), c. 6, p. 553. For example, some attempt statutes provide for a sentence of up to one-half the maximum penalty for the completed crimes, with an exception for more serious offenses; see, e.g.,
*601
Our statute, § 53a-51, provides that attempt is a crime of the same grade and degree as the most serious offense which is attempted. Like other states adopting codes patterned on the Model Penal Code, this statute followed the recommendation of the American Law Institute that attempts to commit crimes (other than felonies of the first degree)
6
should be graded as seriously as the corresponding substantive offense. See, e.g.,
The defendant’s second claim, which appears two-pronged, is that his guilty pleas were neither voluntarily nor knowingly entered because he was erroneously advised concerning the consequences of a conviction for attempted first degree robbery. This contention lacks merit and requires little discussion. As discussed above, the defendant was not, as he asserts, erroneously advised concerning the mandatory minimum sentence for the crimes to which he pleaded guilty. At the time of sentencing his attorney stated that he had already explained to the defendant that the minimum sentence was mandatory. Moreover, the court, in addressing the defendant at that time, clearly indicated to him that the sentence was mandatory. 8
*603 A “separate but related claim” is also made by tbe defendant. He contends that even if $ 53a-35 (c) (2) (B) required the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences, the minimum five-year sentence was mandated if, and only if, the trial court first determined that a term of incarceration was the appropriate form of sentence. To state it another way, he argues that the mandatory sentencing provision does not preclude the imposition of sentences other than incarceration, and, therefore, his pleas could not have been voluntary and knowing unless he was first advised of his other sentencing alternatives. 9 Although we have reviewed the defendant’s other claims because they fell within one of the exceptions noted in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 327 A.2d 576 (1973), the record is not sufficiently complete for us to be able to review this claim. Accordingly, we do not do so. We reach this conclusion quite apart from the fact that he was sentenced precisely in accordance with the plea bargain agreement to which he had agreed.
There is no error.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
In that statement offered by the state, the defendant admitted being at the scene of both robbery attempts but denied any participation in either robbery.
During the canvass of the guilty pleas, the court questioned the defendant about the maximum authorized terms of imprisonment for a class B felony, which the defendant knew was twenty years. At that time, the defendant also indicated to the court that he was pleading guilty pursuant to the plea bargain, knowing that the state would recommend concurrent sentences of five to ten years.
Section 53a-53 provides that “[ajttempt and conspiracy are crimes of the same grade and degree as the most serious offense which is attempted or is an object of the conspiracy, except that an attempt or conspiracy to commit a class A felony is a class B felony.” (Emphasis added.)
The defendant was not unacquainted with the criminal justice system. At the time of sentencing, the state’s attorney, in addressing the court, noted that the defendant had a number of previous convictions. The state’s attorney stated: “I believe I counted seven previous convictions beginning in 1972 for a variety of crimes involving the crime of either assault, thievery of one type or another or being a burglar or larceny.”
The defendant elaims that quite apart from any term of imprisonment, he could have been given a fine of up to ten thousand dollars; see