illegal sentence claim in Connecticut

5 Connecticut opinions name it 1 courts 2009–2021 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Connecticut courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Starksgreen connappct · 2010 · cited in 2 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2021 2 sentences 2021In response, the trial court, which initially had denied the defendant’s 2017 motion to correct an illegal sentence, agreed to vacate that denial and to hear the merits of the defen- dant’s 2017 motion, which largely paralleled the issues that the defendant had raised in his motion for reconsideration. 8 See footnotes 2 and 4 of this opinion. 9 This court previously has held that ‘‘it is inappropriate to review an illegal sentence claim that is raised for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jin, 179 Conn. App. 185, 195 , 179 A.3d 266 (2018); see also State 2021In response, the trial court, which initially had denied the defendant’s 2017 motion to correct an illegal sentence, agreed to vacate that denial and to hear the merits of the defen- dant’s 2017 motion, which largely paralleled the issues that the defendant had raised in his motion for reconsideration. 8 See footnotes 2 and 4 of this opinion. 9 This court previously has held that ‘‘it is inappropriate to review an illegal sentence claim that is raised for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jin, 179 Conn. App. 185, 195 , 179 A.3d 266 (2018); see also State	1	2
Cobham v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen conn · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4	1	1
State v. Catorgreen conn · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Compare State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785, 804-805 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001) (sentencing court had jurisdiction to consider motion to correct illegal sentence when sentence violated prohibition against double jeopardy) with State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487, 490-92 , 776 A.2d 1176 (trial court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence when claim of illegality centered on defect in factual basis of plea), cert. denied, 257 Conn. 904 , 777 A.2d 194 (2001). 2009Compare State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785, 804-805 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001) (sentencing court had jurisdiction to consider motion to correct illegal sentence when sentence violated prohibition against double jeopardy) with State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487, 490-92 , 776 A.2d 1176 (trial court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence when claim of illegality centered on defect in factual basis of plea), cert. denied, 257 Conn. 904 , 777 A.2d 194 (2001).	1	1
Squillante Enterprises, Inc. v. Juckgreen conn · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009Compare State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785, 804-805 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001) (sentencing court had jurisdiction to consider motion to correct illegal sentence when sentence violated prohibition against double jeopardy) with State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487, 490-92 , 776 A.2d 1176 (trial court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence when claim of illegality centered on defect in factual basis of plea), cert. denied, 257 Conn. 904 , 777 A.2d 194 (2001).	1	1
State v. Mollogreen conn · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 1 sentence 2009Compare State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785, 804-805 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001) (sentencing court had jurisdiction to consider motion to correct illegal sentence when sentence violated prohibition against double jeopardy) with State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487, 490-92 , 776 A.2d 1176 (trial court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence when claim of illegality centered on defect in factual basis of plea), cert. denied, 257 Conn. 904 , 777 A.2d 194 (2001).	1	1
State v. Mollogreen connappct · 2001 · cited in 1 Connecticut opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Compare State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785, 804-805 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001) (sentencing court had jurisdiction to consider motion to correct illegal sentence when sentence violated prohibition against double jeopardy) with State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487, 490-92 , 776 A.2d 1176 (trial court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence when claim of illegality centered on defect in factual basis of plea), cert. denied, 257 Conn. 904 , 777 A.2d 194 (2001). 2009Compare State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785, 804-805 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001) (sentencing court had jurisdiction to consider motion to correct illegal sentence when sentence violated prohibition against double jeopardy) with State v. Mollo, 63 Conn. App. 487, 490-92 , 776 A.2d 1176 (trial court properly determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence when claim of illegality centered on defect in factual basis of plea), cert. denied, 257 Conn. 904 , 777 A.2d 194 (2001).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Gang Jin green connappct · 2018 2 sentences 2021In response, the trial court, which initially had denied the defendant’s 2017 motion to correct an illegal sentence, agreed to vacate that denial and to hear the merits of the defen- dant’s 2017 motion, which largely paralleled the issues that the defendant had raised in his motion for reconsideration. 8 See footnotes 2 and 4 of this opinion. 9 This court previously has held that ‘‘it is inappropriate to review an illegal sentence claim that is raised for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jin, 179 Conn. App. 185, 195 , 179 A.3d 266 (2018); see also State 2021In response, the trial court, which initially had denied the defendant’s 2017 motion to correct an illegal sentence, agreed to vacate that denial and to hear the merits of the defen- dant’s 2017 motion, which largely paralleled the issues that the defendant had raised in his motion for reconsideration. 8 See footnotes 2 and 4 of this opinion. 9 This court previously has held that ‘‘it is inappropriate to review an illegal sentence claim that is raised for the first time on appeal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jin, 179 Conn. App. 185, 195 , 179 A.3d 266 (2018); see also State	1	2021–2021
United States ex rel. Cody v. Mantech Int'l Corp. green scotus · 2019 1 sentence 2021In State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378 , 425 n.23, 215 A.3d 1154 (2019), and State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 , 809 n.27, 189 A.3d 1184 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1304 , 203 L.	1	2021–2021
State v. Evans green conn · 2018 2 sentences 2021In State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378 , 425 n.23, 215 A.3d 1154 (2019), and State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 , 809 n.27, 189 A.3d 1184 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1304 , 203 L. 2021In State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378 , 425 n.23, 215 A.3d 1154 (2019), and State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 , 809 n.27, 189 A.3d 1184 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1304 , 203 L.	1	2021–2021
Morris County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Freedom From Religion Foundation green · 2019 1 sentence 2021In State v. McCleese, 333 Conn. 378 , 425 n.23, 215 A.3d 1154 (2019), and State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770 , 809 n.27, 189 A.3d 1184 (2018), cert. denied, U.S. , 139 S. Ct. 1304 , 203 L.	1	2021–2021
State v. Fetscher green conn · 2016 2 sentences 2017In State v. Urbanowski, 163 Conn. App. 377 , 384–85, 136 A.3d 236 , cert. granted, 321 Conn. 905 , 138 A.3d 280 (2016), this court held that, where a defendant had not sought to correct an illegal sentence by filing a Practice Book § 43-22 motion in the trial court, it is inappropriate to raise an illegal sentence claim for the first time on direct appeal. 2017In State v. Urbanowski , 163 Conn.App. 377 , 384-85, 136 A.3d 236 , cert. granted, 321 Conn. 905 , 138 A.3d 280 (2016), this court held that, where a defendant had not sought to correct an illegal sentence by filing a Practice Book § 43-22 motion in the trial court, it is inappropriate to raise an illegal sentence claim for the first time on direct appeal.	1	2017–2017
State v. Golding green conn · 1989 2 sentences 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4	1	2016–2016
State v. Crump green connappct · 2013 2 sentences 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4	1	2016–2016
State v. Brown green connappct · 2012 2 sentences 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4 2016Furthermore, the defendant has the right, at any time, to file a motion to correct an illegal sentence and raise [an illegal sentence] claim before the trial court.’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 592 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010) (declining to review unpreserved claim of illegal sentence under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 [1989], or plain error doctrine embodied in Practice Book § 60-5); see also Cobham v. Commissioner of Correction, 258 Conn. 30 , 38 n.13, 779 A.2d 80 (2001) (clarifying that ‘‘judicial authority’’ in context of Prac- tice Book § 4	1	2016–2016
State v. Casiano green conn · 2007 1 sentence 2012The defendant contends that the court improperly denied his request for counsel to represent him in connection with his motion to correct an illegal sentence in violation of State v. Casiano, supra, 282 Conn. 614 .	1	2012–2012
In Re Damien N. green conn · 2008 1 sentence 2009Therefore, the defendant’s claim falls outside of the limited circumstances in which a court retains jurisdiction over a defendant once that defendant has begun *440 serving his sentence. 4 See State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152, 157-58 , 944 A.2d 991 (court did not have jurisdiction to hear defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence when motion attacked the validity of defendant’s conviction), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 933 , 958 A.2d 1247 (2008).	1	2009–2009
State v. Wright green conn · 2008 1 sentence 2009Therefore, the defendant’s claim falls outside of the limited circumstances in which a court retains jurisdiction over a defendant once that defendant has begun *440 serving his sentence. 4 See State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152, 157-58 , 944 A.2d 991 (court did not have jurisdiction to hear defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence when motion attacked the validity of defendant’s conviction), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 933 , 958 A.2d 1247 (2008).	1	2009–2009
State v. Wright green connappct · 2008 2 sentences 2009Therefore, the defendant’s claim falls outside of the limited circumstances in which a court retains jurisdiction over a defendant once that defendant has begun 440 serving his sentence. 4 See State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152, 157-58 , 944 A.2d 991 (court did not have jurisdiction to hear defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence when motion attacked the validity of defendant’s conviction), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 933 , 958 A.2d 1247 (2008). 2009Therefore, the defendant’s claim falls outside of the limited circumstances in which a court retains jurisdiction over a defendant once that defendant has begun 440 serving his sentence. 4 See State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 152, 157-58 , 944 A.2d 991 (court did not have jurisdiction to hear defendant’s motion to correct illegal sentence when motion attacked the validity of defendant’s conviction), cert. denied, 289 Conn. 933 , 958 A.2d 1247 (2008).	1	2009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CT § Conn. Gen. Stat. § 43-22 (4)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TN 96 (1999–2026) PA 79 (1992–2026) KS 35 (1996–2026) FL 28 (1996–2026) NY 20 (2008–2026) IA 19 (2014–2026) CO 17 (2007–2026) TX 16 (2010–2026) MS 9 (2007–2020) NV 8 (2016–2021) UT 7 (1995–2023) LA 6 (1981–2025) OH 5 (2010–2017) CT 5 (2009–2021) MD 5 (2004–2026) AL 4 (2004–2022) HI 4 (2018–2023) MT 4 (2004–2024) AR 4 (2004–2020) NJ 4 (1995–2022) NM 2 (2008–2021) SD 2 (2017–2017) DE 2 (1987–2021) AK 2 (2023–2023) ND 2 (1981–2026)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check