State v. Langston

• Docket Number: SC 20734
• Decision Date: 06 June 2023
• Parties: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RICHARD LANGSTON
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

1

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RICHARD LANGSTON

No. SC 20734

Supreme Court of Connecticut

June 6, 2023

Argued November 17, 2022

Procedural History

Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and robbery in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford, where the case was tried to the jury before Spada, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of criminal possession of a firearm and robbery in the first degree; thereafter, the court, Graham, J., denied the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the defendant appealed. Affirmed.

John R. Weikart, assigned counsel, with whom was Emily Graner Sexton, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy F. Costello, senior assistant state's attorney with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese L. Walcott state's attorney, and Vicki Melchiorre, former supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker and Alexander, Js.

OPINION

McDONALD, J.

This case requires us to decide whether, following a jury trial, a trial court can properly consider conduct related to a charge of which a criminal defendant was acquitted, when the court sentences the defendant on other charges of which the defendant was convicted. We conclude that the practice is permissible under established law. We also conclude, however, that trial courts should be extremely cautious if they rely on such conduct during sentencing.

The defendant, Richard Langston, appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the sentencing court's consideration of conduct related to a charge of which he was acquitted violated his rights to due process and to a trial by jury under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, §§8 and 19, of the Connecticut constitution. The defendant also urges us, in the absence of a constitutional violation, to use our supervisory authority to prohibit consideration of acquitted conduct during sentencing. Although we do not endorse that practice, we decline to reverse the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion because (1) a long line of both federal and state precedent has allowed significant latitude for what judges may consider during sentencing and has permitted sentencing courts to consider a wide range of conduct, including conduct related to acquitted charges, and (2) the sentence imposed by the sentencing court in this case was within the statutorily prescribed range for the counts of conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.

The defendant was arrested in 1998 in connection with an armed robbery and a shooting. He was subsequently charged with assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and robbery in the first degree. Following a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted of assault in the first degree but convicted of all the other charges. During the sentencing proceedings, the prosecutor requested that the sentencing court find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the assault and consider that finding during the defendant's sentencing. In support of her request, the prosecutor cited the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 117 S.Ct. 633, 136 L.Ed.2d 554 (1997), which held that a sentencing court may consider acquitted conduct, so long as it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, without running afoul of the double jeopardy clause of the United States constitution. See id., 154-55, 157. Defense counsel argued, in response, that the sentencing court should acknowledge and take into account the fact that the defendant was acquitted of the assault charge.

The sentencing court proceeded to review the factual underpinnings of the charges of which the defendant was convicted, as well as the alleged assault, and, notwithstanding the acquittal on the assault charge, commented at length on the assault-placing the defendant as the shooter-and emphasized the impact it had on the victim, Richard Middleton: "[T]he victim . . . turned about, started to walk away, and was shot in the back of both legs by the defendant. [The victim], to this day, carries one of the bullets in his leg. He is effectively crippled and denied from enjoying the full quality of his life. All because this defendant elected to fire a handgun for the sake of stealing $100 from an unsuspecting victim. Further, [the victim] has been denied the opportunity to pursue a meaningful vocational career. He is essentially unable to secure employment and must now, for the remainder of his life, be dependent on the public dole for his support and sustenance. [The victim] is currently on Social Security disability payments, and these will likely continue for the rest of his life. These payments, of course, are shouldered by the taxpayers of this country, and these payments will likely total in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. . . . We learned at trial that [the victim] underwent four days of hospitalization and major surgeries on both of his legs. He now requires, as a relatively young man, the use of a cane to walk. In effect, his life has been stolen from him." Specifically, the sentencing court noted that it found that "[t]he evidence was telling and the witnesses credible."

The court sentenced the defendant to fifteen years of incarceration for the robbery in the first degree conviction, and five years of incarceration, to run consecutively, for the conviction of criminal possession of a firearm. In accordance with the jury's findings, the court also sentenced the defendant to a five year consecutive term of imprisonment as a mandatory sentence enhancement for committing a class A, B or C felony with a firearm pursuant to General Statutes § 53-202k. The defendant received a total effective sentence of twenty-five years of incarceration.^[1] The parties agree that each of the sentences was within the statutorily prescribed range for each of the offenses.

In 2021, the defendant filed the motion to correct an illegal sentence at issue in this appeal, in which he argued that the sentencing court violated his rights under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution when it considered conduct underlying the assault charge of which he was acquitted. The defendant argued that recent United States Supreme Court precedent had limited Watts and that the legal landscape on this issue had changed since Watts was decided. Following oral argument, the trial court denied the defendant's motion.

The trial court emphasized that the defendant's "sentence did not exceed the maximum allowed by law, nor was it imposed in an illegal manner," because, "[u]nder Connecticut case law at the time, the sentencing judge was entitled to consider the shooting of which the defendant was acquitted." The trial court further reasoned that Watts held that a sentencing court is not precluded from considering the conduct underlying any charges of which the defendant was acquitted, so long as it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant carried out that conduct. Furthermore, because the sentencing judge did not exceed the maximum allowable sentences, the trial court found no conflict with the federal constitution. Regarding the question of state law, the court relied on State v. Huey, 199 Conn. 121, 127, 505 A.2d 1242 (1986), for the principle that, as a matter of due process, any information that has "some minimal indicium of reliability" may be considered by the sentencing court as a basis for a sentence. The trial court reasoned that, because the sentencing judge had ample opportunity to observe the witnesses and to reach the conclusion that the evidence was telling and the witnesses were credible, he was in a proper position to impose the defendant's sentence.

The defendant appealed from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence to the Appellate Court, and the appeal was transferred to this court. On appeal, the defendant advances two claims. First, the defendant claims that the sentencing court's consideration of conduct underlying a charge of which he was acquitted violated his rights to a trial by jury and to due process under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, respectively. Second, he claims that the sentencing court's consideration of the same conduct violated his rights to due process and to a trial by jury under article first, §§8 and 19, of the Connecticut constitution.^[2] The defendant also requests that, even if we conclude that his constitutional rights were not violated, we exercise our supervisory authority to create a rule prohibiting the consideration of acquitted conduct in sentencing decisions.

Before turning to the defendant's claims, we summarize the general principles applicable to a trial court's consideration of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. "[A] judicial authority may at any time correct an illegal sentence or other illegal disposition, or it may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner or any other disposition made in an illegal manner." Practice Book § 43-22. "[A]n illegal sentence is essentially one [that] . . . exceeds the relevant statutory maximum limits violates a defendant's right against double jeopardy, is ambiguous, or is internally contradictory. ... In accordance with this summary, Connecticut courts have considered four categories of claims pursuant to . . . § 43-22. ...