State v. Walzer
| Decision Date | 09 January 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 4569,4569 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John P. WALZER. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
John P. Walzer, pro se, the appellant (defendant).
Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before BORDEN, DALY and BIELUCH, JJ.
The defendant appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. We find no error.
In August, 1983, the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge of larceny in the first degree by embezzlement in violation of General Statutes § 53a-119(1) and General Statutes (Rev. to 1981) § 53a-122(a)(2), Public Acts 1981, No. 81-248, § 1. In October, 1983, he was sentenced by the court, Melville, J., to a term of six years to run consecutively with an unrelated federal sentence he was then serving. The sentence was later affirmed by the sentence review board. Thereafter, the defendant moved to correct the sentence pursuant to Practice Book § 935. 1 The trial court, Landau, J., denied the motion.
The defendant's sole claim of error is that General Statutes § 53a-37 2 does not permit a court to order a sentence to run consecutively with an earlier sentence unless the earlier sentence was imposed by a "court of this state." Thus, he argues, since the federal court is not a "court of this state," there is no authority for the court to order as it did. The state argues that the defendant's motion was improper in that it was taken in lieu of an appeal long after the expiration of the appeal period, and additionally, long after the ninety day period provided in Practice Book § 935.
The state misreads Practice Book § 935. That section, which formerly contained a ninety day time limit, was amended, effective October 1, 1983, to provide in pertinent part: "The judicial authority may at any time correct an illegal sentence or other illegal disposition...." (Emphasis added.) Since the trial court's sentence was imposed on October 14, 1983, the claim of illegality falls within the scope of Practice Book § 935 as amended and was not subject to the ninety day period of limitation. As such, it could be addressed by the trial court at any time. Thus, this appeal is properly before us.
The defendant's reliance on General Statutes § 53a-37 as authority for his position is misplaced. (Citations omitted.) Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Canaan Oil & Fuel Co., 193 Conn. 208, 231, 477 A.2d 988 (1984). It is clear that the legislature intended this statute to apply only when a court is faced with either (1) multiple sentences imposed at the same time, or (2) an "undischarged term of imprisonment imposed at a previous time by a court of this state...." General Statutes § 53a-37. Since neither of these situations is present in this case, General Statutes § 53a-37 is not applicable.
A state court's inherent right to impose consecutive sentences has been recognized at common law in Connecticut and elsewhere. See Redway v. Walker, 132 Conn. 300, 43 A.2d 748 (1945); State v. Lawrence, 98 Idaho 399, 565 P.2d 989 (1977); State v. Upham, 415 A.2d 1029, 1033 (R.I.1980). Thus, we conclude that consecutive sentencing is not illegal in this state.
The power to order a consecutive sentence includes the authority to impose a sentence consecutive to one imposed by a court in a different jurisdiction. State v. McKaughen, 108 Idaho 471, 472, 700 P.2d 93 (1985). We note that other state appellate courts have concluded that state sentences must run consecutively with already imposed federal sentences since "no authority exists for a state court to order that a sentence imposed by it shall run concurrently with a sentence being served in another state or with a sentence being served in federal custody." (Emphasis added.) State v. Smith, 633 S.W.2d 253 (Mo.App.1982). In Merchant v. State, 374 N.W.2d 245, 246 (Iowa 1985), the state appellate court, relying upon the traditional rule that a state court is endowed with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williamson
...court had the authority to impose a sentence consecutive to the one imposed by a court in a different jurisdiction. State v. Walzer, 9 Conn.App. 365, 367, 518 A.2d 966 (1986). 7 The Walzer court stated that "[a] state court's inherent right to impose consecutive sentences has been recognize......
-
State Of Conn. v. Parker
... ... 835 State v. Das , ... 291 Conn. 356, 362, 968 A.2d 367 (2009); State v. Lawrence , 281 ... Conn. 147, 153, 913 A.2d 428 (2007); Cobham v. Commissioner of ... Correction , 258 Conn. 30, 37, 779 A.2d 80 (2001); State v. Luzietti , ... supra, 431-32; State v. Walzer , 208 Conn. 420, 424-25, 545 A.2d 559 ... (1988); see also State v. Nardini , 187 Conn. 109, 123, ... 445 A.2d 304 (1982)("[t]he only constitutional problem [arising from the ... legislative exceptions to the rule barring a court from exercising jurisdiction ... after execution of the ... ...
-
State v. Parker, (SC 18432) (Conn. 4/27/2010)
...and, after a 1983 amendment, all motions could be filed at any time. See State v. Pina, supra, 185 Conn. 481 n.6; State v. Walzer, 9 Conn. App. 365, 366, 518 A.2d 966 (1986), cert. denied, 202 Conn. 802, 519 A.2d 1207 (1987). Second, "[u]nlike the federal rules, which have been amended purs......
-
Copeland v. Warden
...by the petitioner is inconsistent with State v. Williamson, 206 Conn. 685, 701-702, 539 A.2d 561 (1988), and State v. Walzer, 9 Conn.App. 365, 367-68, 518 A.2d 966 (1986), cert. denied, 202 Conn. 802, 519 A.2d 1207 (1987). In each case, the defendant challenged the trial court's imposition ......