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. Mukhtaar

Court of Appeals of Connecticut

December 24, 2019

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
v.
ABDUL MUKHTAAR

          Argued September 24, 2019

         Procedural History

         Information charging the defendant with the crime of murder, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield, and tried to the jury before Gormley, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to our Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment; thereafter, the court, Devlin, J., denied the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence; subsequently, the court, Devlin, J., denied the defendant's motion to allow expert testimony, and the defendant appealed to this court, which reversed the denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence and directed the trial court to dismiss the defendant's motion; subsequently, the court, Devlin, J., dismissed the defendant's motion to request a sentence review hearing, and the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

          Abdul Mukhtaar, self-represented, the appellant (defendant).

          Jennifer F. Miller, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John Smriga, state's attorney, and Marc R. Durso, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

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

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

         The self-represented defendant, Abdul Mukhtaar, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his motion for a second sentence review hearing. The court dismissed the defendant's motion after finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion. We affirm the judgment of the court dismissing the defendant's motion.

         The following facts, taken from one of the defendant's prior appeals, [1] and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. ‘‘On February 14, 1996, the defendant shot and killed Terri Horeglad . . . . [The defendant] was arrested, charged and, following a jury trial, convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a. On September 19, 1997, the trial court sentenced the defendant to fifty years imprisonment.'' State v. Mukhtaar, 179 Conn.App. 1, 3, 177 A.3d 1185 (2017). Subsequently, the defendant's sentence was reviewed by the sentence review division of the Superior Court, which concluded that the defendant's sentence was ‘‘neither inappropriate nor disproportionate'' and, thus, affirmed it in 2003.

         On or about October 22, 2018, the defendant filed a motion with the Superior Court that was disconnected from any pending action to request a second sentence review hearing. In his motion, the defendant argued that an April, 2015 ‘‘psychological evaluation [that] determined that the defendant was not capable to aid and assist in his own defense [at] pretrial, [at] trial, and at sentencing'' was ‘‘newly discovered evidence'' that entitled him to a second sentence review hearing. On November 21, 2018, the court held argument on the defendant's motion. The defendant explained that he first made his request for a second sentence review hearing to the sentence review division, which informed the defendant that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the defendant's request and that he would have to make his request to the trial court. The court issued a memorandum of decision on November 28, 2018, in which it held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion and, accordingly, dismissed the motion.

         In its memorandum of decision, the court succinctly stated: ‘‘Under Connecticut law, a trial court is ordinarily without jurisdiction to modify a lawful sentence that a defendant has begun to serve. . . . The legislature, however, may confer jurisdiction to modify executed sentences. . . . The Connecticut legislature has provided two avenues for sentence modification. For total effective sentences of three years or more, review is available through the sentence review division pursuant to General Statutes § 51-195. For definite sentences of three years or less, General Statutes § 53a-39 allows a defendant to seek modification of the sentence from the sentencing court or judge.

         ‘‘The sentence review division is a creature of statute established in 1957 by Public Act 57-436. The statutory scheme provides a defendant with what is, in effect, a limited opportunity for reconsideration of the sentence imposed. The decision of the review board is final. General Statutes § 51-196 (d).

         ‘‘The statutory scheme, by its terms does not provide for any reconsideration of sentences that have been reviewed. Moreover, this court is unaware of any authority that this court has to order the sentence review division to conduct such reconsideration.

         ‘‘Accordingly, this court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the defendant's motion and it is therefore dismissed.'' (Citations omitted; ...


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.