Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Brown

Appellate Court of Connecticut

August 27, 2019

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
KENYA BROWN

         Argued April 23, 2019.

Page 691

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 692

         

          Substitute information in the first case, charging the defendant with the crime of assault in the second degree, and two-part substitute information, in the second case, charging the defendant with the crime of threatening in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Danbury, where the defendant was presented to the court, Marano, J., on a plea of guilty as to the crime of assault in the second degree; judgment of guilty in accordance with the plea; thereafter, the defendant was presented to the court, Blawie, J., on a plea of guilty as to the crime of threatening in the first degree; judgment of guilty in accordance with the plea; subsequently, the court, Welch, J., denied the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the defendant appealed to this court.

         COUNSEL:

          Kenya O. Brown, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

          Bruce R. Lockwood, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky III, state's attorney, and Edward L. Miller, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

          DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Diana, Js.

          OPINION

Page 693

          [192 Conn.App. 149] PER CURIAM.

          The self-represented defendant, Kenya Brown, appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) General Statutes §§ 53a-37[1] [192 Conn.App. 150] and 53a-38[2] are ambiguous and contradictory, and (2) § 53a-38 is unconstitutional because it violates his constitutional rights to due process, to be free from double jeopardy, and to equal protection. We reverse the judgment of the trial court only as it relates to the portion of the defendant's motion to correct that advances arguments that do not implicate the sentencing proceeding itself. The court should have dismissed, rather than denied, this portion of the motion. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.

          The following facts are relevant on appeal. In 2003, the defendant pleaded guilty to attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-54a, and robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (2). The defendant was sentenced to a total effective term of twenty years imprisonment. In 2006, in connection with the assault of a fellow inmate, the defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2), and was sentenced to a term of eighteen months of imprisonment to run consecutively to the sentence he was serving for the 2003 convictions. In 2012, in connection with threats the defendant had made in a letter to a judge, the defendant pleaded guilty to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.