State v. McClean
Decision Date | 09 May 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 37380 |
Citation | 164 A.3d 35 (Mem),173 Conn.App. 62 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Michael MCCLEAN |
Heather Clark, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Melissa Patterson, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Michele C. Lukban and John F. Fahey, senior assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).
Lavine, Alvord and Beach, Js.*
This court originally issued its decision in the present case on August 23, 2016. See State v. McClean , 167 Conn.App. 781, 144 A.3d 490 (2016), petition for cert. filed (Conn. September 12, 2016) (No. 160155). In our decision, we concluded that the form of the trial court's judgment was improper and remanded the case "with direction to render judgment denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence." Id., at 786, 144 A.3d 490.
Several months later, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Delgado , 323 Conn. 801, 151 A.3d 345 (2016), and thereafter, on February 7, 2017, issued the following order.
Upon reconsideration, we are constrained by Delgado to conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and that its judgment should be affirmed. See State v. Delgado , supra, 323 Conn. at 801, 151 A.3d 345.
The trial court's dismissal of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed.
** This case was originally decided on August 23, 2016, by the same three member panel of this court. Thereafter, our Supreme Court, sua sponte, directed this court to "reconsider its ruling that the trial court did have jurisdiction over the motion to correct an illegal sentence in light of our holding in State v. Delgado, 323 Conn. 801, (2016), and State v. Boyd, 323 Conn. 816, (2016)."
* The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of reconsideration.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McGee
...for having dismissed a motion for want of jurisdiction where we determined that the court, in fact, had jurisdiction: State v. McClean, 173 Conn.App. 62, 164 A.3d 35 (2017) (trial court dismissed motion to correct illegal sentence for lack of jurisdiction, on appeal, court determined there ......
-
State v. Rivera
...manner, the trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of the motion. See State v. McClean , 173 Conn.App. 62, 64, 164 A.3d 35 (2017) (concluding: "[u]pon reconsideration, we are constrained by Delgado to conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the......
-
Heinonen v. Gupton
... ... properly attacks the jurisdiction of the court, essentially asserting that the plaintiff cannot as a matter of law and fact state a cause of action that should be heard by the court." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Caruso v. Bridgeport , 285 Conn. 618, 627, 941 A.2d 266 ... ...
-
State v. McClean
...assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn. App. 62, 164 A.3d 35 (2017), is ...