State of Connecticut v. Lawrence Grant (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO CORRECT ILLEGAL SENTENCE

In 2005, after a jury trial, the defendant, Lawrence Grant, was convicted of Attempted Robbery First Degree (General Statutes §§ 53a–49 and 53a–134(a)(4)), Carrying a Dangerous Weapon (§ 53–206(a)), and Commission of a Class A, B or C Felony with a Firearm (§ 53–202k).   On January 5, 2006, the trial court (Comerford, J.) imposed a total effective sentence of seventeen years.   These convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.  State v. Grant, 294 Conn. 151 (2009).   In the present motion, the defendant asserts that his sentence was illegal because (1) the defendant's trial lawyer did not review the Presentence Report (PSI) with him prior to sentencing, (2) the PSI did not adequately describe his history of mental health problems and (3) his attorney did not adequately present his mental health history as a mitigating factor at the sentencing hearing.   The state objects to the motion asserting that (1) the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the defendant's claims, (2) the defendant waived or abandoned any claims relating to the PSI and (3) in light of the five and one-half year delay in filing the motion, the defendant is procedurally defaulted from challenging the PSI.

Hearings were conducted on the defendant's motion on September 14, 2011 and October 18, 2011.   Although the defendant sought representation by the public defender, after the review prescribed by State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614 (2007), the public defender declined to appear.   The defendant therefore was self-represented.

For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the defendant's claims.   The motion is therefore denied.

DISCUSSION

“A generally accepted rule of the common law is that a sentence cannot be modified by the trial court ․ if the sentence was valid and execution of it has commenced.”  State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825, 834 (2010).   On the other hand, if a court imposes an invalid sentence it retains jurisdiction to substitute a valid sentence.  Id. 835.   Stated differently, a trial court has continuing jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence.  Id. Connecticut practice is consistent with the common law meaning of illegality, permitting correction of both illegal sentences and sentences imposed in an illegal manner.  Id., 837.

An “illegal sentence” is essentially one that exceeds the relevant statutory maximum limits, violates a defendant's right against double jeopardy, is ambiguous or internally contradictory.  Id., 839.   The defendant's sentence in the present case has none of these defects.

A sentence “imposed in an illegal manner” is one that (while within the relevant statutory limits) is imposed in a way that violates a defendant's right to be addressed personally at sentencing and to speak in mitigation of punishment, or the right to be sentenced by a judge relying on accurate information or considerations solely on the record or the right that the government keep its plea agreement promises.  Id. The above examples are not exhaustive but rather illustrate the fundamental proposition that the defendant has a legitimate interest in the character of the procedure which leads to the imposition of sentence.

In the present motion, the defendant's principal claim is that his trial attorney failed to review the PSI with him.   This claim was expressly addressed in State v. Parker, supra.   In Parker, our Supreme Court held that such a claim is outside the jurisdictional scope of a motion to correct an illegal sentence.  State v. Parker, supra., 295 Conn. 841.   Moreover, the court also lacks jurisdiction to consider the defendant's additional claim that the PSI was inaccurate.   In State v. Pierre, 129 Conn.App. 516 (2011), our Appellate Court ruled that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider such claimed inaccuracies when raised in a motion to correct illegal sentence.  Id., 526.

The present motion must be denied due to lack of jurisdiction.   It should be noted, however, that even if the defendant's claims were to be considered, they lack merit.   The defendant's PSI contains substantial information about his mental health issues.   It specifically stated his diagnosis and prescribed medication.   It is clear that the trial court had this information available to it at the time of sentencing.

For the reasons set forth above, the Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence is denied.

So Ordered at Bridgeport, Connecticut this 28th day of December 2011.

ROBERT J. DEVLIN, JR., JUDGE

Devlin, Robert J., J.