Opinion
AC 38017
11-07-2017
STATE of Connecticut v. Stephen NEARY
David B. Rozwaski, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Timothy F. Costello, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and James Turcotte, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
David B. Rozwaski, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy F. Costello, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and James Turcotte, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Keller, Prescott and Bear, Js.
PER CURIAM.The defendant, Stephen Neary, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Practice Book § 43–22. On February 7, 2013, pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere to the charges of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167a, assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167c, and carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of General Statutes § 53–206. The defendant also admitted to violating conditions of a previously imposed probation. See General Statutes § 53a–32. On the same day, the court sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of seven years of incarceration, execution suspended after two and one-half years to serve, and two years of conditional discharge.
Although §§ 53a–167a, 53a–167c, 53–206, and 53a–32 have been amended by the legislature since the events underlying the present appeal, those amendments have no bearing on the merits of this appeal. In the interest of simplicity, we refer to the current revision of those statutes.
On March 4, 2014, the defendant filed the second of two motions to correct an illegal sentence in which he raised various claims regarding the legality of his sentence and the underlying conviction. The court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
On August 30, 2017, we ordered the parties to "be prepared to address at oral argument (1) whether the sentence imposed on the defendant on February 7, 2013, has been completed; and (2) if so, whether this appeal from the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to correct [an] illegal sentence has been rendered moot as a result." At oral argument, the defendant conceded that he had completed the sentence that was imposed by the court on February 7, 2013, including the period of conditional discharge.
In State v. Bradley, 137 Conn. App. 585, 587 n.1, 49 A.3d 297, cert. denied, 307 Conn. 939, 56 A.3d 950 (2012), this court held that an appeal from a motion to correct an illegal sentence is rendered moot if the defendant completes the sentence while the appeal is pending because this court cannot afford the defendant any practical relief as to that sentence. Accordingly, because the defendant has completed his sentence, his claims here regarding the legality of that sentence are moot.
To the extent that the defendant here is also attempting to challenge not only the legality of the sentence, but the underlying conviction itself, such a claim is beyond the purview of a motion to correct an illegal sentence. See, e.g., State v. Lawrence, 281 Conn. 147, 158–59, 913 A.2d 428 (2007).
--------
The appeal is dismissed.