Opinion
H12MCR14248466S H12M-CR13-242756-S
02-05-2016
State of Connecticut v. Devon Bonds
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Filed February 8, 2016
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTION FOR " SENTENCE MODIFICATION"
LAURA F. BALDINI, JUDGE
On or about December 21, 2015, the defendant filed a motion entitled " Motion for Sentence Modification." In his motion, the defendant seeks " jail credit for presentence confinement time, " specifically " 23 days of presentenced jail confiment [sic] time."
The facts relevant to this matter are as follows: On June 17, 2015, the defendant was sentenced to three years to serve, followed by one year special parole on the charge of violation of probation under Gen. Stat. 53a-32. On that same date, the defendant was sentenced to three years to serve, followed by one year special parole on the charge of larceny in the third degree under Gen. Stat. 53a-124 to run concurrent with the previously mentioned charge. The defendant has asked this court to award him jail credit for twenty-three (23) days of presentence confinement.
The jurisdiction of a sentencing court terminates once that sentence has begun and, thus, that court may not take any action affecting the sentence unless it expressly has been authorized to act. State v. Bruno, 132 Conn.App. 172, 177, 30 A.3d 34 (2011); Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30, 37, 779 A.2d 80 (2001). There are, however, circumstances where a court may have jurisdiction over a matter after a defendant has been sentenced.
For example, our Supreme Court has stated that courts have the power to correct an illegal sentence. State v. Smith, 150 Conn.App. 623, 634, 92 A.3d 975 (2014); State v. Koslik, 116 Conn.App. 693, 697, 977 A.2d 275, cert. denied, 293 Conn. 930, 980 A.2d 916 (2009); Practice Book § 43-22. In State v. McNellis, 15 Conn.App. 416, 443-44, 546 A.2d 292, cert. denied, 209 Conn. 809, 548 A.2d 441 (1988), explained that " [a]n 'illegal sentence' is essentially one which either exceeds the relevant statutory maximum limits, violates a defendant's right against double jeopardy, is ambiguous, or is internally contradictory." By contrast, " [s]entences imposed in an illegal manner have been defined as being within the relevant statutory limits but . . . imposed in a way which violates defendant's right . . . to be addressed personally at sentencing and to speak in mitigation of punishment . . . or his right to be sentenced by a judge relying on accurate information or considerations solely in the record, or his right that the government keep its plea agreement promises . . ." State v. Smith, 150 Conn.App. at 636 citing State v. McNellis at 444.
The judicial authority may at any time correct an illegal sentence or other illegal disposition, or it may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner or any other disposition made in an illegal manner.
Courts also have the authority, under General Statutes § 53a-39(a), to modify a sentence. General Statutes § 53a-39(a) provides, in relevant part:
At any time during the period of a definite sentence of three years or less the judicial authority after a hearing and for good cause shown reduce the sentence or order the defendant discharged or released on probation or on a conditional discharge for a period not to exceed that to which the defendant could have been sentenced originally.
The court has reviewed the defendant's motion. The court finds that the defendant's motion fails to set forth a jurisdictional basis upon which this court could consider it as a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The court also finds that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion as a motion to modify his sentence. Here, the defendant asks this court to reduce his sentence by twenty-three days to enable him to receive jail credit for certain periods of claimed pretrial confinement. Gen. Stat. § 54-227(a), however, requires an inmate to notify Office of Victim Services and the Victim Services Unit of a request to modify a sentence. There is nothing to indicate that the defendant complied with that requirement and, as such, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion.
Even if the court had jurisdiction, it is clear that the defendant's reliance upon Gen. Stat. § 53a-39 is misguided. In essence, the defendant has asserted unsubstantiated information concerning claimed jail credit to make an equitable, not legal argument that his sentence should be modified. Our courts, however, have held that absent some legal grounds as articulated previously, courts lack " any general equitable authority to open a criminal judgment after [a] defendant has begun serving the sentence." State v. Montanez, 149 Conn.App. 32, 37, 88 A.3d 575 (2014) citing State v. Alegrand, 130 Conn.App. 652, 23 A.3d 1250 (2011).
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant's motion for jail credit is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED.