Skip to main content

State v. Gamble

Citations

  • 206 Conn. App. 837

Syllabus

Convicted of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, the defendant appealed from the trial court's dismissal of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant was charged with, inter alia, murder, and, at trial, the state presented evidence that the defendant and his accomplices each fired a gun at the victim. At the state's request, the judge charged the jury on all of the elements of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. At the hearing on the motion to correct, the defendant acknowledged that he was challenging his sentence solely on the basis of what he contended was an unconstitutional conviction of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm. The court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that the defendant was attacking his conviction, not the sentence he received or the manner in which the sentence was imposed. On appeal, the defendant claimed that there was a colorable claim that his sentence on the underlying conviction of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm was illegally enhanced on the basis of a fact not found by the jury. Held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the defendant's motion to correct for lack of jurisdiction, as the defendant challenged what transpired at trial, not at sentencing, and his claim presupposed an invalid conviction; the jury was instructed on all of the elements of the offense for which the defendant was convicted and sentenced, including the element of using a firearm, and the jury, not the judge, found the defendant guilty of that offense; moreover, to the extent that the defendant argued that the court misled the jury or incorrectly accepted its verdict, his arguments attacked his underlying conviction, not his sentence, and despite the defendant's claim that the firearm element that enhanced his manslaughter conviction was never proven to the jury, the record sufficiently demonstrated that the state pre

Judges: Prescott; Clark; DiPentima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

15 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.