March 13, 2019
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, and tried to the jury
before Miano, J. Dewey, J.
L. OBrien, Douglasville, assigned counsel, with whom, on the
brief, was Christopher Y. Duby, North Haven, assigned
counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
G. Weller, senior assistant states attorney, with whom, on
the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, states attorney, Rita M.
Shair, senior assistant states attorney, and Elizabeth S.
Tanaka, former assistant states attorney, for the appellee
C.J., and Alvord and Conway, Js.
Conn.App. 103] The defendant, Ernest Francis, appeals from
the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct
an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22.
On appeal, the defendant claims that his sentence was imposed
in an illegal manner because the court substantially relied
on materially inaccurate information concerning his prior
criminal history and the manner in which he had committed the
underlying crime. We disagree and, thus, affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
following facts and procedural history are relevant to this
appeal. The defendant was convicted of murder in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-54a(a), and, on April 15, 1992, was
sentenced to fifty years of incarceration. See State v.
Francis, 228 Conn. 118, 635 A.2d 762 (1993). Prior to
sentencing, the court, Miano, J., was
provided with a presentence investigation report (presentence
report) detailing the defendants prior criminal history. The
presentence report indicated that the defendant had been
convicted previously of conspiracy to sell cocaine and
assault in the second degree. During sentencing, the
prosecutor informed the court of the details surrounding the
apparent conviction of conspiracy to sell cocaine and noted
that there seemed to be a discrepancy between the offense of
which he was charged initially, conspiracy to sell cocaine,
and the offense of which he was convicted, conspiracy to
possess cocaine. The prosecutor also advised the court that
the defendant had not been convicted of assault [191
Conn.App. 104] in the second degree, as indicated in the
report, but, rather, assault in the third degree.
discussing the reasons for its sentence, the court,
Miano, J., reviewed the events that
transpired on the day the defendant murdered the victim. In
so doing, the court indicated that the defendant had stabbed
the victim more than once during the underlying altercation.
the relevant facts based on the evidence at trial, the court
noted that the defendant, at the age of nineteen, had three
felony convictions. After noting that one of "[t]he
purposes of sentencing" is deterrence, the court sought
to send a message to "the young men like the defendant
that appear macho, that are involved in drugs, that have
cars, attractive new cars, that have jewelry, that have
money, [and] that have attractive ladies," that
"[they] have to think before they commit such an ...