Skip to main content

State v. Green

Citations

  • 206 Conn. App. 253

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been convicted in 2009 on a plea of guilty to three counts of the crime of assault in the first degree, appealed from the trial court's dismissal of his 2018 motion to withdraw his plea, in which he claimed that the plea was obtained in violation of his due process rights because the trial court failed to inquire as to whether the plea was the result of force, threats or promises apart from a plea agreement, as required by the applicable rule of practice (§ 39-20). The trial court dismissed the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the defendant conceded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to con- sider his motion but requested that this court exercise its supervisory authority pursuant to the applicable rule of practice (§ 60-2) to treat the appeal as an authorized late appeal from his 2009 conviction. Held: 1. This court had the authority to review the merits of the trial court's dismissal of the postsentencing motion to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea: reviewing courts have jurisdiction to determine whether a trial court had subject matter jurisdiction; moreover, even though the defendant conceded that the court properly dismissed his motion, the appeal was justiciable because there was an actual controversy as to whether this court should exercise its supervisory authority to treat the defendant's appeal of the dismissal of his motion as an authorized late appeal of his judgment of conviction, the parties' positions on the issue were adverse, this court had the power to resolve the controversy pursu- ant to Practice Book § 60-2, and it could have granted practical relief to the defendant. 2. The defendant failed to demonstrate that it was appropriate for this court to invoke its supervisory authority pursuant to Practice Book § 60-2 to treat his appeal from what he conceded was the correct judgment of the trial court as an untimely appeal from the judgment of conviction that was rendered more than ten years a

Judges: Bright; Prescott; DiPentima

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cites

9 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.