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. EDWARD PARKER (SC 18432)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Katz, Palmer, Vertefeuille, Zarella and McLachlan, Js. Argued January 14--officially released April 27, 2010

Glenn W. Falk, special public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Elliot Morrison, law student intern, for the appellant (defendant). Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Scott J. Murphy, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Opinion

KATZ, J. The sole issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly dismissed the motion of the defendant, Edward Parker, seeking to correct his sentence, which he claimed had been imposed in an illegal manner because: (1) he had not been given an opportunity to review the presentence investigation report (presentence report), thereby denying him an opportunity to address inaccuracies and mistakes in the report; and (2) he had been deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to review the presentence report with him and neglected to bring inaccuracies and mistakes in that report to the sentencing court's attention. We conclude that the defendant's claims do not fall within the limited circumstances under which the trial court has jurisdiction to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner and, therefore, we affirm the trial court's decision. The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. The defendant was charged by way of substitute information with robbery in the first degree and murder. The defendant thereafter entered a plea under the Alford doctrine1 to the charge of murder, an offense that carries a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years imprisonment. See General Statutes

Download State v. Parker.pdf

Connecticut Law