State v. Thompson

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Smith

    213 Conn. App. 848 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    "The determination of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary." State v. Thompson , 190 Conn. App. 660, 665, 212 A.3d 263, cert. denied, 333 Conn. 906, 214 A.3d 382 (2019). "A motion to correct an illegal sentence under

  2. State v. Marshall

    206 Conn. App. 209 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021)   Cited 2 times

    "The determination of whether a claim may be brought via a motion to correct an illegal sentence presents a question of law over which our review is plenary." State v. Thompson , 190 Conn. App. 660, 665, 212 A.3d 263, cert. denied, 333 Conn. 906, 214 A.3d 382 (2019). Practice Book § 43-22 provides that "[t]he 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."

  3. State v. Vivo

    197 Conn. App. 363 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    We note that the defendant's criminal conviction pursuant to § 53-202k was reversed by this court in Vivo v. Commissioner of Correction , supra, 90 Conn. App. at 177, 876 A.2d 1216. In reviewing the defendant's claim on appeal, our decision in State v. Thompson , 190 Conn. App. 660, 212 A.3d 263, cert. denied, 333 Conn. 906, 214 A.3d 382 (2019), serves as a useful guide. Although we note that the underlying conviction in Thompson was for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and kidnapping in the first degree, and did not involve a sentence enhancement pursuant to § 53-202k as in the present case, the defendants in both cases failed to challenge their sentences or the relevant sentencing proceedings in their motions to correct an illegal sentence.