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. JEFFREY PIERCE (AC 32022)
Robinson, Bear and Flynn, Js. Argued April 11--officially released June 21, 2011

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, geographical area number fifteen, Gaffney, J. [judgment]; Espinosa, J. [motion to dismiss motion to correct illegal sentence].) James B. Streeto, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Robert J. Scheinblum, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Scott J. Murphy, state's attorney, for the appelle (state).

Opinion

BEAR, J. The defendant, Jeffrey Pierce, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The substance of the defendant's contention is that the sentencing court improperly considered a presentence investigation report (1999 report) that relied, in part, on confidential information contained in an earlier presentence investigation report (1996 report) submitted in an unrelated case. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over his motion to correct an illegal sentence. He further claims that the court improperly concluded in the alternative that the defendant waived a challenge to the court's consideration of the 1999 report and that the motion failed on its merits because the defendant failed to prove harm. We conclude that the court properly determined that it was without subject matter jurisdiction.1 We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant's appeal. On May 7, 1999, following the defendant's conviction on the charges of kidnapping in the second degree in violation of General Statutes

Download State v. Pierce.pdf

Connecticut Law