September 24, 2019
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
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.
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 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,
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
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).
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
this court finds that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the
defendant's motion and it is therefore
dismissed.'' (Citations omitted; ...