State v. Nusser

Citations

• 197 Conn. App. 76

Syllabus

The defendant, who had been convicted, on guilty pleas, of the crimes of larceny in the first degree, burglary in the third degree, and criminal violation of a restraining order, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his second motion for presentence confinement credit. The court had granted the defendant's first motion for presen- tence confinement credit and, thereafter, issued a revised mittimus. Subsequently, the defendant filed a second motion for presentence con- finement credit and, at the hearing on that motion, defense counsel informed the court that the Department of Correction had found the revised mittimus problematic and would not credit the defendant's sen- tence. The court denied the defendant's second motion, and this appeal followed. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the court abused its discretion in denying his second motion for presentence confinement credit, that his sentence was illegal because it breached his plea agree- ment with the state, and that the failure of the department to implement the revised mittimus resulted in structural error and fundamental unfairness in the sentencing process. Held that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the defendant's second motion for presentence confinement credit: a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, rather than a motion directed at the sentencing court, is the proper method to challenge the application of presentence confinement credit; the defendant never argued that there was an illegal sentence, illegal disposition, or that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner, and he did not argue or present evidence demonstrating that his second motion fell within the narrow grant of jurisdiction provided by the applicable rule of practice (§ 43-22). Argued January 6—officially released April 21, 2020