State v. Felder
Decision Date | 05 November 2013 |
Docket Number | No. 34892.,34892. |
Citation | 146 Conn.App. 621,78 A.3d 224 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Bruce FELDER. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Bruce Felder, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Thomas R. Garcia, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
GRUENDEL, BEAR AND FOTI, Js.
The defendant, Bruce Felder, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant claims that the court erred insofar as it determined that his sentence did not violate the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
This court, in a previous appeal, set forth the facts of the underlying criminal case as follows.
1State v. Felder, 95 Conn.App. 248, 250–51, 897 A.2d 614, cert. denied, 279 Conn. 905, 901 A.2d 1226 (2006). This court, on grounds unrelated to this appeal, affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., at 263, 897 A.2d 614.
On April 16, 2012, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. In support of the motion, the defendant alleged that his sentence violated the prohibition against double jeopardy because his two larceny convictions “arose out of the same transaction and the same series of events, and included a single victim as to each charged offense.” (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) The court denied the motion on May 15, 2012. In its memorandum of decision, the court stated that This appeal followed.
The defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the court improperly denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Specifically, the defendant contends that his convictions of larceny in the first degree and larceny in the second degree constituted the same offense and arose out of the same transaction. To the extent he received separate sentences for each offense, the defendant maintains that his sentence violates the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. We are not persuaded.
“The defendant's double jeopardy claim presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary.” State v. Burnell, 290 Conn. 634, 642, 966 A.2d 168 (2009). 2 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640, 650–51, 11 A.3d 663 (2011).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 651–52, 11 A.3d 663.
In the present case, the court's denial of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence was predicated on a finding that the charged crimes did not constitute the same offense. Accordingly, the relevant question is whether the charges for first and second degree larceny constitute the same offense.3 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alvaro F., 291 Conn. 1, 7, 966 A.2d 712, cert. denied, 558 U.S. 882, 130 S.Ct. 200, 175 L.Ed.2d 140 (2009).
In the amended long form information, the defendant was charged, in count three, with larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53a–122 (a)(3) and, in count four, with larceny in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53a–123 (a)(3).4 To convict the defendant of larceny in the first degree pursuant to § 53a–122 (a)(3), the state had to establish that the defendant, with intent to deprive another of property, wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld such property and “the property consists of a motor vehicle, the value of which exceeds ten thousand dollars....” 5 General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53a–122 (a)(3). On the other hand, to convict the defendant of larceny in the second degree pursuant to § 53a–123 (a)(3), the state had to establish the same elements and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Carlos P.
...of proving that the prosecutions are for the same offense in law and fact." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Felder , 146 Conn.App. 621, 625, 78 A.3d 224 (2013), cert. denied, 311 Conn. 909, 83 A.3d 1164 (2014). The double jeopardy prohibition also is violated if one crime is a ......
-
Felder v. Comm'r of Corr.
...the decision. On November 5, 2013, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. See State v. Felder, 146 Conn. App. 621, 78 A.3d 224 (2013). On January 15, 2014, the Connecticut Supreme Court denied certification to appeal. See State v. Felder, 279 Conn. 905, 90......
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Khatun
-
State v. Felder
...assistant state's attorney, in opposition. The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 146 Conn.App. 621, 78 A.3d 224 (2013), is denied.ESPINOSA, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this ...