Kohlfuss v. Warden of Connecticut State Prison

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
Writing for the CourtBefore BALDWIN; BALDWIN
Citation149 Conn. 692,183 A.2d 626
PartiesAlfred W. KOHLFUSS v. WARDEN OF CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut
Decision Date27 July 1962

Page 626

183 A.2d 626
149 Conn. 692
Alfred W. KOHLFUSS
v.
WARDEN OF CONNECTICUT STATE PRISON.
Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
July 27, 1962.

[149 Conn. 693]

Page 627

Alfred W. Kohlfuss, pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

Otto J. Saur, State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was John F. McGowan, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (defendant).

Before [149 Conn. 692] BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

[149 Conn. 693] BALDWIN, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff pleaded guilty in the Superior Court in Fairfield County to a charge [149 Conn. 694] of robbery with violence and was sentenced to a term of not less than two nor more than seven years in the state prison. General Statutes § 53-14. He filed a petition for a review of his sentence, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-195. The sentence review division of the Superior Court heard his petition, decided that the sentence should be increased, and ordered that a sentence of not less than three nor more than seven years be imposed. State v. Kohlfuss, 22 Conn.Sup. 278, 279, 169 A.2d 659. The Superior Court in Hartford County modified the judgment accordingly and resentenced the plaintiff to the penalty ordered by the review division. The plaintiff applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that his constitutional rights had been violated in that he had been put in double jeopardy and had been denied due process of law. From the denial of his application for the writ, he has taken this appeal.

General Statutes § 51-194 provides for the appointment by the chief justice of three judges of the Superior Court to act as a sentence review division of that court. Any person sentenced to a term of one or more years in the state prison may, within thirty days, apply for a review of his sentence by filing an application with the clerk of the Superior Court. General Statutes § 51-195. The clerk notifies him in writing when he is sentenced that he has this right and that the review division may, in acting on his application, increase or decrease the sentence he has received. Ibid. The filing of an application does not stay the execution of the sentence. Ibid. The review division may increase or decrease the sentence within the limits which could have been imposed originally, or it may decide that the sentence should stand. §§ 51-195, 51-196. If the division[149 Conn. 695] orders a different sentence, the Superior Court sitting in any convenient county resentences the convicted person. § 51-196. Time served on the sentence reviewed is deemed to be time served on the sentence substituted. Ibid.

The plaintiff claims that he has been put in double jeopardy in that he was brought into court from prison, where he was serving a sentence already imposed, and a longer sentence was placed upon him. The fifth amendment to the federal constitution, which provides that no person shall be 'subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb,' does not apply to state proceedings unless the double jeopardy amounts to a denial of due process under the fourteenth amendment. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 322, 58 S.Ct. 149, 82 L.Ed. 288; Brantley v. Georgia, 217 U.S. 284, 285, 30 S.Ct. 514, 54 L.Ed. 768. There is no specific provision against double jeopardy in the constitution of Connecticut. It is nonetheless true that we have in large part adopted the common-law rule against it as necessary to the due process guaranteed by article first, § 9, of our constitution. See State v. Lee, 65 Conn. 265, 271, 30 A. 1110, 27 L.R.A. 498; State v. Carabetta, 106 Conn. 114, 117, 137 A. 394; State v. Holloway, 144 Conn. 295, 298, 130 A.2d 562. Another generally accepted rule of the common law is that a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 practice notes
  • State v. Flynn, Nos. 4132
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • April 5, 1988
    ...§ 8, of the Connecticut constitution, therefore, have been held to encompass protection against double jeopardy. Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 298, 9 L.Ed.2d 235 (1962). One of the protections flowing from the double jeopardy guar......
  • State v. Lonergan, No. 13640
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 28, 1989
    ...first, § 9 of the Connecticut constitution have been held to encompass the protection against double jeopardy. Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 298, 9 L.Ed.2d 235 (1962). The constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy has been hel......
  • State v. Moeller
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 19, 1979
    ...156 Conn. 598, 600-601, 244 A.2d 366 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969); Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 298, 9 L.Ed.2d 235 (1962). This case comes to us as a matter of first impression as to wh......
  • State v. Madera
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 17, 1985
    ...constitution which has been interpreted to include the double jeopardy protection as an element of due process. See Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
83 cases
  • State v. Flynn, Nos. 4132
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • April 5, 1988
    ...§ 8, of the Connecticut constitution, therefore, have been held to encompass protection against double jeopardy. Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 298, 9 L.Ed.2d 235 (1962). One of the protections flowing from the double jeopardy guar......
  • State v. Lonergan, No. 13640
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • November 28, 1989
    ...first, § 9 of the Connecticut constitution have been held to encompass the protection against double jeopardy. Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 298, 9 L.Ed.2d 235 (1962). The constitutional prohibition of double jeopardy has been hel......
  • State v. Moeller
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • June 19, 1979
    ...156 Conn. 598, 600-601, 244 A.2d 366 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969); Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626, cert. denied, 371 U.S. 928, 83 S.Ct. 298, 9 L.Ed.2d 235 (1962). This case comes to us as a matter of first impression as to wh......
  • State v. Madera
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • December 17, 1985
    ...constitution which has been interpreted to include the double jeopardy protection as an element of due process. See Kohlfuss v. Warden, 149 Conn. 692, 695, 183 A.2d 626...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT