State v. Nixon

Citations

• 350 Conn. 804

Syllabus

The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court, which dis- missed his motion to correct an illegal sentence for lack of subject matter This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker, 350 Conn. 804 DECEMBER, 2024 805 State v. Nixon jurisdiction. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had incorrectly con- cluded that it lacked authority under the statute (§ 18-98d) governing presen- tence confinement credit to direct the commissioner of correction to apply such credit to his sentence. Held: The issue of whether the trial court has authority to direct the commissioner to apply presentence confinement credit to a sentence was resolved in the companion case of State v. Hurdle (350 Conn. 770), in which this court held that trial courts do have authority to direct the commissioner to apply such credit to a sentence on a judgment mittimus. The trial court improperly dismissed the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, as the court had jurisdiction over that motion under the applicable rule of practice (§ 43-22) because the motion raised a colorable claim that the defendant's plea agreement required that he receive a certain number of days of presentence confinement credit, and there was no indica- tion in the record that, as part of the plea agreement, the defendant waived his right to the reduction in his sentence mandated by § 18-98d. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment was reversed and the case was remanded so that the trial court could consider the merits of the defendant's motion to correct. Argued April 25—officially released December 10, 2024