State v. Williams-Bey

Full title: STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. TAUREN WILLIAMS-BEY

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Date published: May 9, 2017

173 Conn. App. 64 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)

164 A.3d 31

Opinion

AC 37430

05-09-2017

STATE of Connecticut v. Tauren WILLIAMS–BEY

Heather Clark, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant). Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, Vicki Melchiorre, senior assistant state's attorney, and Melissa E. Patterson, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

PER CURIAM.

Heather Clark, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Michele C. Lukban, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, Vicki Melchiorre, senior assistant state's attorney, and Melissa E. Patterson, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Lavine, Alvord and Beach, Js.^*

* The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of reconsideration.
--------

PER CURIAM.This court originally issued its decision in the present case on August 23, 2016. See State v. Williams–Bey , 167 Conn.App. 744, 144 A.3d 467 (2016), petition for cert. filed (Conn. September 12, 2016) (No. 160154). In our decision, we concluded that the form of the trial court's judgment was improper and remanded the case "with direction to render judgment denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence." Id., at 781, 144 A.3d 467.

Several months later, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Delgado , 323 Conn. 801, 151 A.3d 345 (2016), and thereafter, on February 7, 2017, issued the following order. "No action is taken on the defendant-appellant [Tauren Williams–Bey's] petition for certification to appeal filed September 12, 2016, at this time. It is hereby ordered, sua sponte, that the Appellate Court's decision in State v. Tauren Williams–Bey , 167 [Conn.App.] 744, 144 A.3d 467 (2016), is remanded to that court with direction to reconsider its ruling that the trial court did have jurisdiction over the motion to correct an illegal sentence in light of our holding in State v. Delgado , 323 Conn. 801, 151 A.3d 345 (2016), and State v. Boyd , 323 Conn. 816, (2016)."

Upon reconsideration, we are constrained by Delgado to conclude that the trial court properly dismissed the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence and that its judgment should be affirmed. See State v. Delgado , supra, 323 Conn. at 801, 151 A.3d 345.

The trial court's dismissal of the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence is affirmed.