State v. Sebben
| Decision Date | 17 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | AC 427630 |
| Citation | 243 A.3d 365,201 Conn.App. 376 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Peter SEBBEN |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Peter Sebben, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).
Joan M. Andrews, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were William Tong, attorney general, Sean Kehoe, assistant attorney general, and Judith A. Brown, former assistant attorney general, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Alvord, Cradle and Alexander, Js.
The plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, instituted this action pursuant to General Statutes § 18-85a1 and § 18-85a -2 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies,2 to recover $22,330, the assessed cost for 154 days of incarceration, from the self-represented defendant, Peter Sebben. See generally State v. Ham , 253 Conn. 566, 566–67, 755 A.2d 176 (2000) ; Alexander v. Commissioner of Administrative Services , 86 Conn. App. 677, 678, 862 A.2d 851 (2004). The trial court rendered summary judgment in favor of the state. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly granted the state's motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the assessed cost of his incarceration, (2) his right to equal protection was violated, (3) application of § 18-85a constituted an excessive fine in violation of the eighth amendment to the United States constitution, (4) the court improperly denied his motion to reargue and (5) the court improperly denied his request for an extension of time for additional discovery. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The defendant was convicted of violating General Statutes §§ 53a-58 and 53a-155. The court sentenced the defendant to six months of incarceration in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction, beginning on January 2, 2015. On April 23, 2015, the state filed an application for a prejudgment remedy to attach certain of the defendant's assets. On July 23, 2015, the court, Wiese, J ., granted the state's application in the amount of $22,330.
The state then filed a complaint to recover the costs of the defendant's incarceration. The state alleged that the defendant had been incarcerated from January 2 to June 2, 2015, at an assessed cost of $22,330. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the court, Hon. Constance L. Epstein , judge trial referee, denied on July 5, 2016, and a motion to strike, which the court, Robaina, J ., denied on August 18, 2017. Thereafter, the defendant filed an answer in which he raised various special defenses. Following the state's motion to strike, the court, Robaina, J ., struck the majority of the defendant's special defenses.
On June 29, 2018, the state moved for summary judgment. On August 14, 2018, the defendant filed his opposition. On November 19, 2018, the court, Noble, J ., heard oral argument on the motion for summary judgment.
On March 15, 2019, the court issued its memorandum of decision on the summary judgment motion. At the outset of its analysis, the court noted that the law of the case doctrine applied and that Judge Robaina previously had addressed some of the arguments presented in the defendant's opposition to summary judgment. The court concluded that the state had met its burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court then considered and rejected the defendant's arguments that (1) he was entitled to additional discovery, (2) the assessed cost of incarceration claimed by the state was based on an unreliable calculation, and (3) he unfairly was targeted by the state, which had not sought reimbursement for incarceration costs from other inmates, thereby evidencing an equal protection violation.
On April 3, 2019, the defendant filed a motion for reargument and/or reconsideration of the granting of the state's motion for summary judgment. On May 9, 2019, the court denied the defendant's motion, noting that it was not "well-founded."
On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's rendering of summary judgment in favor of the state and the denial of his motion to reargue. He essentially iterates arguments that he raised in the trial court.3
We carefully have examined the record of the proceedings before the trial court, in addition to the parties’ appellate briefs and oral arguments. Applying the well established principles that govern our review of a court's decision to grant a motion for summary judgment; see, e.g., Capasso v. Christmann , 163 Conn. App. 248, 257–60, 135 A.3d 733 (2016) ; we conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. We adopt the trial court's thorough and well reasoned decision as a proper statement of the facts and the applicable law on the issues. See State v. Sebben , Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Docket No. CV-15-5039364-S, 2019 WL 1765823 (March 15, 2019) (reprinted at 201 Conn. App. 376, 381, 243 A.3d 365 ). It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See, e.g., Tzovolos v. Wiseman , 300 Conn. 247, 253–54, 12 A.3d 563 (2011) ; Maselli v. Regional School District No. 10 , 198 Conn. 643, 648, 235 A.3d 599, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 947, 238 A.3d 19 (2020) ; Freeman v. A Better Way Wholesale Autos, Inc. , 191 Conn. App. 110, 112, 213 A.3d 542 (2019).
The judgment is affirmed.
APPENDIX
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. PETER SEBBEN*
Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford
Memorandum filed March 15, 2019
Memorandum of decision on plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Motion granted .
Peter Sebben , self-represented, the defendant.
Judith Brown , assistant attorney general, for the plaintiff.
The plaintiff, the state of Connecticut, acting by Scott Semple, Commissioner of Correction, commenced the present case against the defendant, Peter Sebben, to recover $22,330: the alleged cost of the defendant's incarceration. Prior to commencing the present case, the plaintiff filed an application for a prejudgment remedy on April 23, 2015. A hearing was held on July 22, 2015, after which the court, Wiese, J ., granted the plaintiff's application in the amount of $22,330.
In its complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was convicted of certain crimes and that a judge of the Superior Court committed the defendant to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction to be incarcerated. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendant was incarcerated from January 2, 2015, to June 5, 2015; between January 2, 2015, and April 17, 2015, the plaintiff alleges it incurred costs of $15,225 with nothing received from the defendant, and from April 18, 2015, until June 5, 2015, the plaintiff alleges it incurred costs of $7105.
On October 13, 2016, the defendant filed a motion to strike (# 128) the plaintiff's complaint. That motion was denied by the court, Robaina, J ., on August 18, 2017; the court articulated its decision in a memorandum of decision (# 142). On September 18, 2017, the defendant filed an answer and special defenses (# 144). The plaintiff filed a motion to strike each of the defendant's special defenses (# 145) on November 14, 2017. On April 19, 2018, in a detailed order (# 145.86), the court, Robaina, J ., addressed the plaintiff's motion, granting it in part and denying it part.
On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment (# 152), which was accompanied by a memorandum of law as well as several exhibits (# 153). On August 14, 2018, the defendant filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the motion for summary judgment (# 156), which was accompanied by several exhibits. The motion was heard on November 19, 2018.
(Citation omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Grenier v. Commissioner of Transportation , 306 Conn. 523, 534–35, 51 A.3d 367 (2012). "A motion for summary judgment shall be supported by appropriate documents, including but not limited to affidavits, certified transcripts of testimony under oath, disclosures, written admissions and other supporting documents." Practice Book § 17-45 (a).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State Farm Fire & Casualty Co . v. Tully , 322 Conn. 566, 573, 142 A.3d 1079 (2016). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rivera v. CR Summer Hill, Ltd. Partnership , 170 Conn. App. 70, 74, 154 A.3d 55 (2017).
In support of its motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff argues that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luth v. OEM Controls, Inc.
...406 ). It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the thorough discussion contained therein. See, e.g., State v. Sebben , 201 Conn. App. 376, 380, 243 A.3d 365 (2020) ; Gawlik v. Semple , 197 Conn. App. 83, 86, 231 A.3d 326, cert. denied, 335 Conn. 953, 238 A.3d 730 (2020), cert. den......
- In re Ja'La L.
- State v. Lemanski
-
State v. Sebben
...assistant attorney general, in opposition. The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 201 Conn. App. 376, 243 A.3d 365, is denied. D'AURIA, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition. ...