State v. Skipwith

• Decision Date: 15 August 2017
• Docket Number: SC 19608
• Citation: 165 A.3d 1211,326 Conn. 512
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Connecticut v. Justin SKIPWITH

326 Conn. 512

165 A.3d 1211

STATE of Connecticut

v.Justin SKIPWITH

SC 19608

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 5, 2017

Officially released August 15, 2017

Jeffrey D. Brownstein, Meridan, for the appellant (plaintiff in error Tabatha Cornell).

Denise B. Smoker, senior assistant state's attorney, Rocky Hill, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Jason Germain, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (defendant in error state's attorney for the judicial district of Waterbury).

Rogers, C.J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa, Robinson and D'Auria, Js.^*

ROGERS, C.J.

The question that we must answer in this certified appeal is whether a crime victim who has been deprived of her state constitutional rights to object to a plea agreement between the state and the defendant and to make a statement at the sentencing hearing is entitled to have the defendant's sentence vacated so that she may attend a new sentencing hearing and give a statement. The defendant, Justin Skipwith, was charged with, inter alia, manslaughter in the second degree with a motor vehicle after the vehicle that he was driving struck and killed Brianna Washington, the daughter of the plaintiff in error, Tabatha Cornell. Although the plaintiff in error notified the defendant in error, the state's attorney for the judicial district of Waterbury (state), that she was invoking her rights as a victim of the crime pursuant to article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, as amended by articles seventeen and twenty-nine of the amendments,¹ she was not afforded an opportunity to object to the plea agreement between the defendant and the state or to make a statement at the defendant's sentencing hearing. Thereafter, the plaintiff in error filed a motion to vacate the sentence, which the trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.² The plaintiff in error then filed a writ of error claiming that the trial court improperly dismissed her motion to vacate the defendant's sentence, naming the state as the defendant in error.³ See State v. Skipwith , 159 Conn.App. 502, 503, 123 A.3d 104 (2015). The Appellate Court determined that the trial court had properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion to vacate and dismissed the writ of error. Id., at 512, 123 A.3d 104. We then granted the plaintiff in error's petition for certification to appeal.⁴ We affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court on the alternative ground that the writ of error must be dismissed on the merits⁵ because it seeks a form of relief that is barred by the victim's rights amendment. Accordingly, we need not reach the question of whether the Appellate Court properly found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff in error's motion to vacate the defendant's sentence.

The undisputed facts of this case are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Court; see id., at 503–506, 123 A.3d 104 ; and need not be repeated here, as the state concedes that the plaintiff in error was denied her right under article first, § 8, as amended, to object to the plea and to give a statement at the defendant's sentencing. Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (7) and (8). After learning that the defendant had been sentenced, the plaintiff in error filed a motion to vacate the sentence based on violations of the victim's rights amendment. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion, at which the plaintiff in error and a family friend gave statements, and ultimately dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the sentence was not illegal. Id., at 505–506, 123 A.3d 104.

The plaintiff in error then filed this writ of error challenging the decision of the trial court. The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court properly had dismissed the motion to vacate the defendant's sentence, and then dismissed the writ of error on the merits. Id., at 512, 123 A.3d 104. The Appellate Court reasoned that Practice Book § 43–22⁶ authorizes the trial court to "correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner," and the plaintiff in error had provided "no authority supporting the proposition that a defendant's sentence is imposed in an illegal manner ... when the sentencing proceeding was conducted in violation of the victim's constitutional right to be present." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 510–12, 123 A.3d 104. In addition, the Appellate Court observed that victims have no statutory authority to seek to vacate a defendant's conviction. Id., at 512, 123 A.3d 104. This certified appeal followed.

The plaintiff in error contends that, contrary to the Appellate Court's determination, because the defendant's sentence was imposed without affording her the right under article first, § 8, as amended, to give a statement at the defendant's sentencing, the sentence was "imposed in an illegal manner" for purposes of Practice Book § 43–22, and, therefore, she was entitled to have the sentence vacated. The state contends that the Appellate Court correctly determined that the trial court had properly dismissed the plaintiff in error's motion to vacate the defendant's sentence and further claims, essentially as an alternative ground for affirmance, that, in the absence of any express constitutional or statutory provision, both the Appellate Court and this court lack jurisdiction to entertain a writ of error seeking to enforce the provisions of the victim's rights amendment. We conclude that this court had jurisdiction over the writ of error and, consequently, we had the authority to transfer it to the Appellate Court.⁷ We also conclude, however, that the writ of error must be dismissed on the merits because it seeks a form of relief that is barred by the victim's rights amendment.⁸

Because it implicates this court's appellate jurisdiction, we first address the state's claim that this court lacks authority to entertain a writ of error seeking to enforce the victim's rights amendment because neither the state constitution nor any statute expressly confers such authority. This is a question of law over which our review is plenary. See Pritchard v. Pritchard , 281 Conn. 262, 274–75, 914 A.2d 1025 (2007) (whether party "properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court is a question of law subject to plenary review").

In support of its contention that this court lacks jurisdiction over a writ of error seeking to enforce the victim's rights amendment, the state relies primarily on this court's decision in State v. Gault , 304 Conn. 330, 39 A.3d 1105 (2012). In that case, the victim⁹ appealed from an order of the trial court requiring that an affidavit supporting the arrest warrant for the defendant, which had been redacted to remove information that could identify the victim, be unsealed. Id., at 335–36, 39 A.3d 1105. She contended, among other things, that this order violated her right under article first, § 8, as amended, to be treated with fairness and respect throughout the criminal justice process. Id., at 336, 39 A.3d 1105 ; see also Conn. Const., amend. XXIX (b) (1). The state claimed on appeal that, because the victim was not a party to the criminal proceeding, she had no standing to appeal. State v. Gault , supra, at 333, 337–38, 39 A.3d 1105. This court agreed with the state. Id., at 338, 39 A.3d 1105. We observed in Gault that "except insofar as the constitution bestows upon this court jurisdiction to hear certain cases ... the subject matter jurisdiction of ... this court is governed by statute." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 339, 39 A.3d 1105. We then noted that the victim's rights amendment did not contain a right to appeal from a ruling by the trial court implicating the rights created by that amendment. Id. We further noted that the statute authorizing appeals, General Statutes § 52–263, provided that the remedy of appeal was available only to parties to the case. Id., at 342, 39 A.3d 1105. Finally, we observed that, although Public Acts 1998, No. 98–231, § 2, as amended by Public Acts 2001, No. 01–211, § 12, codified at General Statutes § 46a–13c (5), authorized the Office of the Victim Advocate to "[f]ile a limited special appearance in any court proceeding for the purpose of advocating for any right guaranteed [by the victim's rights amendment or] the general statutes," the legislature did not intend that victims would have full party status or the right to appeal from rulings of the trial court. See State v. Gault , supra, at 347, 39 A.3d 1105. Accordingly, we concluded that victims were not parties with standing to appeal from an order in a criminal case, and we dismissed the victim's appeal. Id., at 348, 39 A.3d 1105.

In the present case, the state contends that Gault stands for the proposition that, because the victim's rights amendment contains no self-executing remedial procedures; see id., at 340–41, 39 A.3d 1105 ; if the legislature has not expressly provided a remedy by which the rights protected by that constitutional provision may be vindicated, no such remedy exists.¹⁰ Our decision in Gault , however, was premised on the principle that the right of appeal is created purely by statute. See id., at 339, 39 A.3d 1105. Because no statute provides victims with a right to appeal from rulings of the trial court, no such right exists. In contrast, a writ of error is a common-law remedy. See, e.g., State v. McCahill , 261 Conn. 492, 499–500, 811 A.2d 667 (2002) ("[t]he writ of error ... is a concept deeply rooted in our common law" and "the right to bring a writ of error ... exists independent of [any] statutory authorization" [citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted] ); State v. Assuntino , 173 Conn. 104, 112, 376 A.2d 1091 (1977) ("The writ [of error] has long lain to this court ... in accordance with statutes which have been merely declaratory of the common law. It is therefore concluded...