State v. Fowlkes

• Decision Date: 11 September 2007
• Docket Number: No. 17835.,17835.
• Citation: 283 Conn. 735,930 A.2d 644
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Alan FOWLKES.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

930 A.2d 644

283 Conn. 735

STATE of Connecticut v. Alan FOWLKES.

No. 17835.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 10, 2007.

Decided September 11, 2007.

Suzanne Zitser Curtis, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Julia K. Conlin, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Regan, state's attorney, and Michael Kennedy, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

BORDEN, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE, ZARELLA and SULLIVAN, Js.^*

ZARELLA, J.

The defendant, Alan Fowlkes, pleaded guilty under the Alford doctrine¹ to assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60. The trial court rendered judgment of conviction and sentenced the defendant to a term of five years incarceration, execution suspended after twenty months, and three years of probation. After the defendant began serving his sentence, the state moved to modify the terms of his probation to require him to pay restitution to the victim. The court granted the state's motion, and the defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion to modify because the defendant already had begun serving his sentence.² We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the trial court's decision to grant the motion to modify.

The following undisputed facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The defendant's conviction arose from an incident of domestic violence that occurred on October 21, 2005. The defendant, who had been romantically involved with the victim for approximately seven years, assaulted the victim, causing her to sustain serious injuries, including the loss of teeth. The defendant was charged with, inter alia, assault in the second degree in connection with this incident. On January 13, 2006, the trial court accepted the defendant's Alford plea and rendered judgment thereon. On January 25, 2006, less than two weeks after the court rendered judgment of conviction and the defendant was committed to the custody of the commissioner of correction, the state moved to modify the terms of the defendant's probation to include a condition that he pay restitution to the victim. Specifically, the state argued that, as a result of the assault, the victim incurred medical costs and that, as a condition of the defendant's probation, the defendant should pay those costs as restitution to the victim. The trial court granted the state's motion to modify and ordered the defendant, upon the commencement of his probation, to pay $170 per month to the victim, until he paid a total of $6205. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's decision to grant the state's motion to modify, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199(c) and Practice Book § 65-1. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order restitution because the defendant already had started serving his sentence. The state argues, inter alia, that the court had subject matter jurisdiction because restitution is not punitive in nature. We agree with the state.

We begin our analysis with the applicable standard of review. "We have long held that because [a] determination regarding a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is plenary." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alexander, 269 Conn. 107, 112, 847 A.2d 970 (2004).

The defendant contends that the trial court had no authority to order restitution because its order was not made in accordance with General Statutes § 53a-30.³ Specifically, the defendant claims that § 53a-30 authorizes a trial court to issue an order of probation, which includes restitution, only at the time that it imposes the original sentence of incarceration or during the period of probation. The defendant further claims that after sentencing, but before the beginning of any period of probation, only the court support services division may modify or change the conditions of probation pursuant to § 53a-30(b). We disagree.

The defendant claims that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction after it imposed the defendant's sentence because that jurisdiction terminated once the defendant began serving his sentence. "Subject matter jurisdiction involves the authority of a court to adjudicate the type of controversy presented by the action before it.... A court does not truly lack subject matter jurisdiction if it has competence to entertain the action before it.... Once it is determined that a tribunal has authority or competence to decide the class of cases to which the action belongs, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is resolved in favor of entertaining the action.... It is well established that, in determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, every presumption favoring jurisdiction should be indulged." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 112-13, 847 A.2d 970.

Although the trial court is a constitutional court of general jurisdiction; State v. Reid, 277 Conn. 764, 774, 894 A.2d 963 (2006); "the jurisdiction of [a] sentencing court terminates once a defendant's sentence has begun, and, therefore, that court may no longer take any action affecting a defendant's sentence unless it expressly has been authorized to act." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alexander, supra, 269 Conn. at 113, 847 A.2d 970. The defendant claims that the restitution order in the present case affected the defendant's sentence because General Statutes § 53a-30(a) provides that conditions of probation, including restitution, are defined as "condition[s] of the sentence...." The correct analysis, however, does not turn on whether restitution is a "condition of the sentence" but, rather, whether it "affect[s] [the] sentence...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Alexander, supra, at 119, 847 A.2d 970. In order to make such a determination, we must ascertain whether the trial court's action was punitive in nature. Id., at 118-19, 847 A.2d 970. If it is not punitive in nature, then a defendant's sentence is not affected, and the trial court has jurisdiction to take that action. If it is punitive, then a defendant's sentence is affected, and the trial court lacks jurisdiction to take that action. See State v. Waterman, 264 Conn. 484, 497, 825 A.2d 63 (2003). We conclude that the restitution order in the present case was not punitive in nature and, therefore, did not affect the defendant's sentence.

In State v. Waterman, supra, 264 Conn. at 497-98, 825 A.2d 63, we determined that a trial court had jurisdiction to make factual findings and advise a criminal defendant of certain statutory requirements in connection with his conviction after he already had begun serving his sentence. In Waterman, the sentencing court held a hearing approximately one month after the defendant, Steven Waterman, was convicted of one count of public indecency, in order to make factual findings and to advise Waterman of the mandatory sex offender registration requirements of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 54-251.⁴ Id., at 485-87, 825 A.2d 63. Waterman claimed that the registration requirements were punitive and "constitut[ed] a substantive change in the judgment, and that, in the absence of an express legislative grant of continuing jurisdiction, once he had begun serving his sentence, the court no longer could make the factual finding that subjected him to the sex offender registration requirements [of] § 54-251." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 489, 825 A.2d 63. The state argued that Waterman's "sentence was not affected by the trial court's determination that he must comply with [the registration requirements of § 54-251]." Id.

The dispositive issue in Waterman was whether the registration requirements of § 54-251 were punitive and thus affected the defendant's sentence. See id., at 492, 825 A.2d 63. In Waterman, we used the two part test that we had adopted in State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23, 92, 770 A.2d 908 (2001), to determine whether the registration requirements of § 54-251 were punitive. "[U]nder the first part of the test, the court examine[s] whether the legislature ha[s] intended the statute [under consideration] to be criminal or civil, in other words, `punitive in law.' ... Under the second part of the test, the ... court consider[s] whether, even if not punitive in law, the statute [is] nevertheless `punitive in fact,' that is, whether the statute [is] so punitive in fact that it [can] not be seen as civil in nature." (Citation omitted.) State v. Waterman, supra, 264 Conn. at 492-93, 825 A.2d 63. Applying this test, we held that the registration requirements of § 54-251 were not punitive. See id., at 493, 497, 825 A.2d 63. We determined that, "[b]ecause [the] regulatory requirements [of the statute were] ministerial, the trial court did not have to revisit the sentence in order to inform the defendant of his obligations. Indeed, making the factual finding and informing the defendant of [the] requirements ... did not necessitate any modification, opening or correction of the sentence. In short, [Waterman's] sentence was not affected by the trial court's factual finding and advisement that he must comply with the statute. Rather, the court merely was effectuating the regulatory purpose of [the statute]." Id.

In State v. Alexander, supra, 269 Conn. at 107, 847 A.2d 970, we applied the same analysis when the trial court in that case issued a restraining order pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53a-40e,⁵ after the defendant Robert Alexander, began serving his sentence. After Alexander began serving his sentence for unlawful restraint in the first degree and assault in the first and third degree, the state requested that the trial court issue a restraining order to protect one of Alexander's victims. Id., at 109, 111, 847 A.2d 970. Alexander argued...