Opinion
No. 18739.
2012-10-23
STATE of Connecticut v. Mark BRESCIA.
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Rubinow, J. Martin Zeldes, public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Laurie N. Feldman, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and James Turcotte, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Superior Court, Judicial District of New Haven, Rubinow, J.
Martin Zeldes, public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Laurie N. Feldman, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and James Turcotte, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
ROGERS, C.J., and NORCOTT, PALMER, ZARELLA, EVELEIGH and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.
PER CURIAM.
On March 10, 2006, during criminal sentencing proceedings, the trial court found the defendant, Mark Brescia, to be in contempt of the court and, following a summary contempt proceeding at which the defendant admitted that his conduct constituted contempt, sentenced him to six months imprisonment. See General Statutes § 51–33; Practice Book § 1–16. On September 17, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence or disposition pursuant to Practice Book § 43–22 (motion to correct), claiming that the contempt sentence was imposed in an illegal manner, thereby rendering it invalid. On February 27, 2009, the trial court dismissed the defendant's motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after concluding that the defendant's sole remedy was by writ of error. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the defendant's motion to correct for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. State v. Brescia, 123 Conn.App. 342, 347, 1 A.3d 1145 (2010). We then granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to this court limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant's Practice Book § 43–22 motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed after a summary criminal contempt proceeding pursuant to General Statutes § 51–33?” State v. Brescia, 300 Conn. 901, 12 A.3d 574 (2011).
After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
The appeal is dismissed.