State v. Arnold

• Decision Date: 20 July 2021
• Docket Number: AC 40489
• Parties: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EARL ARNOLD
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
EARL ARNOLD

AC 40489

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Argued May 12, 2021
July 20, 2021

Bright, C. J., and Moll and Harper, Js.

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been convicted of the crimes of murder, kidnapping, capital felony, larceny in the first degree and robbery in the first degree and sentenced to a total effective term of seventy years of imprisonment without the possibility of parole, appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying in part his motion to correct an illegal sentence. At the hearing on his motion, the defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time he committed the crimes, claimed that his capital felony conviction and sentence had to be vacated because, under No. 15-84 of the 2015 Public Acts, individuals who were juveniles at the time of their offense no longer could be sentenced for capital felony and that the remainder of his sentence was illegal because the sentencing court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy by imposing his sentence for murder in conjunction with his sentence for capital felony. The trial court vacated the defendant's capital felony conviction and sentence but denied any further relief. Held that the defendant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that his right to due process was violated because the sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information at his sentencing, namely, that it failed to recognize, as required by Miller v. Alabama (567 U.S. 460) and State v. Riley (315 Conn. 637), that juveniles are different from adults for purposes of sentencing, was not reviewable under State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), the record having been inadequate for review.

Procedural History

Substitute information, in the first case, charging the defendant with the crimes of murder, kidnapping in the first degree and capital felony, and substitute information, in the second case, charging the defendant with the crimes of larceny in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Waterbury, where the cases were consolidated and tried to the jury before Glass, J.; verdicts and judgments of guilty; thereafter, the court, Fasano, J., denied in part the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the defendant appealed. Affirmed.

Adele V. Patterson, senior assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and John J. Davenport, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Page 2

Opinion

BRIGHT, C. J. The defendant, Earl Arnold, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Fasano, J., denying in part his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims, for the first time, that his current sentence is illegal because the sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information at his sentencing. We conclude that this claim is not reviewable and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. In August, 1983, the defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time, abducted the victim, Joanne DiChiara, as she was walking to her car after having dinner at a restaurant in Waterbury. The defendant then robbed the victim and, in the process, stabbed her in the neck. Thereafter, the defendant threw the victim into her car and drove to a wooded area, where he disposed of her body. Before leaving the woods, the defendant stabbed the victim twenty-four more times. The victim's body was eventually found, and, after a police investigation, the defendant was arrested. On the basis of this evidence, a jury found the defendant guilty of capital felony, intentional murder, kidnapping in the first degree, larceny in the first degree, and robbery in the first degree. The trial court accepted the jury's verdict and sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of seventy years of imprisonment without the possibility of parole.¹ Our Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction on direct appeal. State v. Arnold, 201 Conn. 276, 288, 514 A.2d 330 (1986).

In 2014, the self-represented defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183 L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012),² he was entitled to a resentencing hearing at which the sentencing court could consider his age at the time of the offenses in imposing a new sentence. In 2016, following the appointment of counsel, the defendant filed an amended motion³ to correct an illegal sentence, again alleging that his sentence was unconstitutional under Miller, as well as under our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Riley, 315 Conn. 637, 110 A.3d 1205 (2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. 1202, 136 S. Ct. 1361, 194 L. Ed. 2d 376 (2016).⁴ The defendant's 2016 motion was dismissed after the General Assembly passed No. 15-84 of the 2015 Public Acts (P.A. 15-84),⁵ which amended Connecticut's parole statute to provide parole hearings to juvenile offenders who had been convicted of crimes committed while they were under eighteen years of age...