Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CLAUDE ALEGRAND (AC 31200)
DiPentima, C. J., and Bear and Flynn, Js. Argued October 13, 2010--officially released August 9, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New London, Clifford, J. [criminal judgment]; Handy, J. [motion for relief from judgment, sentence]) Diane Polan, with whom were Michael J. Wishnie and Ana Munoz, law student intern, and, on the brief, Daniel Habib, law student intern, for the appellant (defendant). Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

FLYNN, J. The defendant, Claude Alegrand, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion for relief from judgment and sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear his motion for relief from judgment and sentence, a motion presented as an independent action in equity, or, in the alternative, as a petition for a writ of audita querela. As a third alternative, the defendant contends that even if we find that the court's jurisdictional holding was correct, we should nonetheless, despite that lack of jurisdiction, exercise our supervisory powers, pursuant to Practice Book

Download State v. Alegrand.pdf

Connecticut Law