State v. Langston
Citations
- 346 Conn. 605
Syllabus
The defendant appealed from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant had been convicted of the crimes of criminal possession of a firearm and robbery in the first degree, but acquitted of assault in the first degree, in connection with an armed robbery and a shooting. During the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor, relying on United States v. Watts (519 U.S. 148), requested that the sentencing court find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant had committed the assault, notwithstanding his acquittal of that charge, and consider that finding for purposes of sentencing. The sentencing court reviewed the underlying facts of the defendant's convic- tion, as well as the assault charge of which the defendant was acquitted, noted that it found the evidence to be telling and the witnesses to be credible, and commented on the nature of the alleged assault and its impact on the victim. The court specifically stated that the victim ''was shot in the back of both legs by the defendant.'' The defendant received a lengthy total effective sentence, but the sentence for each count on which he was convicted fell within the statutorily prescribed range. In his motion to correct, the defendant argued that the sentencing court violated his rights under the federal and state constitutions when it considered the conduct underlying the assault charge, but the court rejected the defendant's claim and denied the motion. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the sentencing court's consideration of the conduct underlying the assault charge of which he was acquitted violated his federal and state constitutional rights to due process and to a trial by jury. Held: 1. The sentencing court's consideration of the conduct underlying the assault charge of which the defendant was acquitted did not violate his rights to a trial by jury or due process under the sixth and fourteenth amend- ments to the United States constitution, res
Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. HaynesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-01· cited 10×
- State v. KingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-08-08· cited 1×
- State v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-02· cited 1×
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-23· cited 1×
- Mack v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court· 2026-06-02
Cites
55 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Apprendi v. New JerseySupreme Court· 2000-06-26· cited 28,372×
- United States v. BookerSupreme Court· 2004-10-01· cited 23,210×
- Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1968-05-20· cited 3,740×
- Williams v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1949-06-06· cited 2,766×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- United States v. TuckerSupreme Court· 1972-01-11· cited 2,508×
- Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. VirginiaSupreme Court· 1980-07-02· cited 1,951×
- Townsend v. BurkeSupreme Court· 1948-06-14· cited 1,667×
- United States v. WattsSupreme Court· 1997-01-06· cited 1,575×
- Witte v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1995-06-14· cited 870×
- Nichols v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1994-06-06· cited 832×
- State v. GeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-06-18· cited 496×
- Williams v. OklahomaSupreme Court· 1959-03-30· cited 452×
- United States v. Patrick WandahsegaSixth Circuit· 2019-05-21· cited 399×
- People v. TowneCalifornia Supreme Court· 2008-06-26· cited 181×
- United States v. WhiteSixth Circuit· 2008-12-24· cited 153×
- United States v. Martin SweigSecond Circuit· 1972-01-12· cited 142×
- United States v. GrubbsFourth Circuit· 2009-11-06· cited 134×
- Aunyx Corp. v. Canon U. S. A., Inc.Supreme Court· 1993-03-08· cited 123×
- United States v. Robert H. Campbell, United States of America v. Excavation Construction, Inc.D.C. Circuit· 1982-08-03· cited 114×
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.