Skip to main content

State v. Francis

Citations

  • 338 Conn. 671

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been convicted of murder, appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. Prior to sentencing, the sentencing court was provided with a criminal history report and a presentence investigation report, which included a summary of the defendant's prior convictions of assault and drug offenses. In his motion to correct, the defendant claimed that the sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information concerning his criminal history and the circumstances of the underlying offense. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the presentence investigation report incorrectly indicated that he had been convicted of conspiracy to sell cocaine, rather than conspiracy to possess cocaine, and that he was convicted of assault in the second degree of an elderly person, rather than assault in the third degree. The defendant also claimed that the sentencing court mistakenly believed that he ''grazed'' the victim before stabbing him. The trial court denied the defendant's motion, concluding that there was no evidence that the sentencing court relied on inaccurate information, that the court's statement that the defendant ''grazed'' the victim was supported by the record, and that, even if that statement was inaccurate, the court did not rely on the inaccuracy. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's denial of the motion to correct, and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the sentencing court had substantially relied on inaccurate information when imposing his sentence: the defendant's claim was belied by the record because, prior to sentencing, the prosecutor informed the sentencing court of the error in the presentence investigation repo

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.