State v. Langley
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | Before KING; ALCORN |
| Citation | 156 Conn. 598,244 A.2d 366 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Philip LANGLEY. |
| Decision Date | 25 June 1968 |
Page 366
v.
Philip LANGLEY.
[156 Conn. 599] Igor I. Sikorsky, Jr., Special Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Joseph T. Gormley, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Otto J. Saur, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before [156 Conn. 598] KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, COTTER and THIM, JJ.
[156 Conn. 599] ALCORN, Associate Justice.
The defendant has taken this appeal from a judgment and sentence of the Superior Court, claiming that he has been subjected to double jeopardy in violation of that provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States which, he claims, is made obligatory on the states through the fourteenth amendment.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of the crimes of rape and robbery with violence in a trial in which he was represented by the public defender. On March 14, 1961, he was sentenced to serve not less than twelve nor more than fifteen years for the crime of rape and one year for the crime of robbery with violence. Thereafter he applied, pursuant to § 51-195 of the General Statutes, for a review of his sentence by the review division of the Superior Court. Although he was indigent, he was not represented by counsel at the hearing on this application and was not informed of his right to be represented by court-appointed counsel. The review division affirmed the sentence for rape and increased the sentence for robbery with violence from one year to five years. As required by § 51-196 of the General Statutes, the Superior Court, on June 23, 1961, then resentenced the defendant as ordered by the review division, the sentence to be effective as of March [156 Conn. 600] 14, 1961, the date of the original sentence. Thereafter, in a habeas corpus action, the Superior Court concluded that the proceedings before the review division were in violation of the constitution of the United States because the defendant, an indigent, had not had the benefit of counsel in those proceedings. Consiglio v. Warden, 153 Conn. 673, 220 A.2d 269. Consequently, the court adjudged, on June 1, 1967, that the defendant
Page 367
be discharged from custody under the mittimus issued in conformity with the sentence imposed in June, 1961, unless that judgment and sentence was vacated and the original judgment and sentence of March 14, 1961, was reinstated, the defendant then again to have the right to seek a review of the reinstated sentence pursuant to General Statutes § 51-195 with the aid of counsel. On June 13, 1967, in accordance with that judgment, the Superior Court vacated and set aside its judgment and sentence of June, 1961, and reinstated the original judgment and sentence, effective as of March 14, 1961, the original date thereof. The procedures were thus strictly in accordance with those prescribed by this court in Consiglio v. Warden, supra, 153 Conn. 679, 220 A.2d 269. It is the judgment and sentence of June 13, 1967, which is the subject of this appeal.The constitution of Connecticut has never contained a provision against double jeopardy such as that found in article five of the amendments to the constitution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Flynn, Nos. 4132
...as a fundamental principle of common law that no one shall be put in jeopardy more than once for the same offense." State v. Langley, 156 Conn. 598, 600-601, 244 A.2d 366 [14 Conn.App. 15] (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969). The due process guarantees o......
-
State v. Lonergan, No. 13640
...as a fundamental principle of common law that no one shall be put in jeopardy more than once for the same offense." State v. Langley, 156 Conn. 598, 600-601, 244 A.2d 366 (1968), cert. denied, Page 680 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969). Therefore, the due process guarantees......
-
State v. Tabone, No. 18119.
...resentencing a defendant does not trigger double jeopardy concerns when the original sentence was illegal or erroneous. State v. Langley, 156 Conn. 598, 601-602, 244 A.2d 366 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969). Jeopardy does not attach until the avenues......
-
State v. Moeller
...against double jeopardy is, as my colleagues acknowledge, implicit in the common law, and our cases have so held. State v. Langley, 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......
-
State v. Flynn, Nos. 4132
...as a fundamental principle of common law that no one shall be put in jeopardy more than once for the same offense." State v. Langley, 156 Conn. 598, 600-601, 244 A.2d 366 [14 Conn.App. 15] (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969). The due process guarantees o......
-
State v. Lonergan, No. 13640
...as a fundamental principle of common law that no one shall be put in jeopardy more than once for the same offense." State v. Langley, 156 Conn. 598, 600-601, 244 A.2d 366 (1968), cert. denied, Page 680 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969). Therefore, the due process guarantees......
-
State v. Tabone, No. 18119.
...resentencing a defendant does not trigger double jeopardy concerns when the original sentence was illegal or erroneous. State v. Langley, 156 Conn. 598, 601-602, 244 A.2d 366 (1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1069, 89 S.Ct. 726, 21 L.Ed.2d 712 (1969). Jeopardy does not attach until the avenues......
-
State v. Moeller
...against double jeopardy is, as my colleagues acknowledge, implicit in the common law, and our cases have so held. State v. Langley, 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......