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. MITCHELL HENDERSON (AC 31610)
DiPentima, C. J., and Bear and Borden, Js. Argued January 11--officially released August 2, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford, Espinosa, J. [judgment]; Gold, J. [motion to correct illegal sentence]). Katharine S. Goodbody, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Emily Graner Sexton, special deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and Herbert Carlson, former supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

DiPENTIMA, C. J. The defendant, Mitchell Henderson, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly dismissed his motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We agree with the defendant's jurisdictional argument. We conclude, however, that as a matter of law, the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence must be denied. In September, 1993, a jury found the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree, assault in the third degree, threatening and attempt to escape from custody.1 Following the jury trial, the defendant pleaded guilty, pursuant to the Alford doctrine,2 to two part B informations that had charged him with being a persistent dangerous felony offender under General Statutes (Rev. to 1993)

Download State v. Henderson.pdf

Connecticut Law