April 8, 2019
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford,
Diamond, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Shair, senior assistant states attorney, with whom were Gail
P. Hardy, states attorney, and, on the brief, David L.
Zagaja, senior assistant states attorney, for the appellee
C. J., and Lavine and Bishop, Js.
Conn.App. 661] The defendant, Earl V. Thompson, appeals from
the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to
correct an illegal sentence. In this appeal, the defendant
claims that the trial court improperly concluded that it
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion. We
conclude that, in the motion to correct considered by the
trial court, the defendant challenged only the validity of
his conviction and not his sentence or the sentencing
proceeding, and, therefore, the court properly determined
that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the trial court.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to our
discussion. The defendant was convicted, after a jury trial,
of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in
violation of General Statutes § § 53a-134 (a) (4) and 53a-48,
robbery in the first degree in violation of § 53a-134 (a) (4)
and kidnapping in the first degree as an accessory in
violation of General Statutes § § 53a-92 (a) (2) (B) and
53a-8. See State v. Thompson, 128 Conn.App. 296,
298, 17 A.3d 488 (2011), cert. denied, 303 Conn. 928, 36 A.3d
241 (2012). Following his conviction, the court sentenced him
to a term of twenty years [190 Conn.App. 662] incarceration
on each of the robbery counts, to run concurrently, and a
term of twenty-five years incarceration on the kidnapping
count, to run consecutively to the other terms, for a total
effective sentence of forty-five years of incarceration.
Id., at 300, 17 A.3d 488. This court affirmed the
defendants conviction on direct appeal. Id., at
298, 17 A.3d 488.
October 29, 2015, the self-represented defendant filed a
motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Practice
Book § 43-22. He argued that his sentence was internally
contradictory and violated his right against double jeopardy.
The front page of this motion contains two notations from the
court. The first notation, dated March 31, 2016, states that
the motion was [190 Conn.App. 663] withdrawn. The second
notation, dated August 24, 2016, states that the motion
should be placed back on the docket and that a special public
defender would review the motion to correct an illegal
sentence. The self-represented defendant essentially
reasserted the contents of his motion to correct an illegal
sentence in a motion dated May 6, 2016, and captioned
to reopen Motion to correct illegal sentence pursuant to
Connecticut Practice Book [§ ] 43-22." This "motion
to reopen" included the claims that the defendants
sentence was internally contradictory and violated his right
against double jeopardy.
September 20, 2016, Attorney Robert J. McKay entered an
appearance on behalf of the defendant. On April 24, 2017,
McKay filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence. In the
accompanying memorandum of law, McKay set forth the
following: "The defendant now comes and claims that ...
there is a question regarding which statutory provision ...
applied at that time. Within the current case law, the
defendants conviction for conspiracy to commit robbery in
the first degree ... should be vacated as there existed no
facts to support that there existed a plan between the
defendant and a codefendant to threaten the victim with a gun
upon enter[ing] the victims home and/or intentionally aided
the codefendant in committing the offense of robbery in the
first degree." ...