Opinion
AC 34178
02-05-2013
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. KHARI MILLER
Khari Miller, pro se, the appellant (defendant). Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Richard J. Rubino, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The "officially released" date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ''officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ''officially released'' date.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
Robinson, Espinosa and Pellegrino, Js.
(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of
Hartford, Beach, J. [judgment]; Alexander, J. [motion to correct].)
Khari Miller, pro se, the appellant (defendant).
Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Richard J. Rubino, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion
PER CURIAM. The self-represented defendant, Khari Miller, appeals from the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly found that felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c is a class A felony, rather than an unclassified felony. We are not persuaded.
The defendant was convicted of felony murder in violation of § 53a-54c, robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2), and conspiracy to commit robbery in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-134 (a) (2) and 53a-48. The court sentenced the defendant to forty-five years of incarceration on the felony murder count and fifteen years of incarceration on each of the other counts, to run concurrently, for a total effective sentence of forty-five years imprisonment, consecutive to any sentence in any other case. In his motion to correct and again on appeal, the defendant has asserted that felony murder is an unclassified felony, or alternatively, a class A felony other than murder, for which a forty-five year sentence is not statutorily authorized.
We thoroughly have reviewed the record and briefs in this case and have considered the relevant legal principles. Contrary to the defendant's claim that felony murder is appropriately characterized as an unclassified felony, our case law makes clear that ''felony murder is simply one form of the crime of murder.'' State v. Cross, 127 Conn. App. 718, 721, 14 A.3d 1082, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 918, 21 A.3d 464 (2011); see also State v. John, 210 Conn. 652, 696, 557 A.2d 93 (in enacting felony murder statute, ''the legislature intended to specify another manner in which the crime of murder could be committed, rather than create a new crime''), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 824, 110 S. Ct. 84, 107 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1989). Moreover, although the defendant asserts that ''[t]reating the crime of felony murder as a class A murder and sentencing [him] in accordance with [General Statutes] § 53a-35a (2) is and/or would be against the intent of the legislature,'' our Supreme Court has explicitly stated that General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (c) and 53a-35a (2) are the ''related penalty provisions''; State v. Greco, 216 Conn. 282, 293-94, 579 A.2d 84 (1990); to the felony murder statute and provide that felony murder is punishable as a class A felony by ''a prison term of at least twenty-five years and not more than life . . . ." Id., 295 and n.13. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to correct.
Indeed, as the court recognized in denying the defendant's motion to correct, both § 53a-54c, the felony murder statute, and § 53a-54a, the intentional murder statute, begin by stating: ''[A] person is guilty of murder when (Emphasis added).
--------
The judgment is affirmed.