September 24, 2019
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Fairfield, and tried to the jury before Gormley, J.; Devlin,
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).
Judges: DiPentima, C. J., and Alvord and Flynn, Js.
Conn.App. 2] PER CURIAM.
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.
following facts, taken from one of the defendant's prior
appeals, 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 [195 Conn.App. 3] 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.
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.
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, ...