M ORE L AW
LEXAPEDIA
Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

 
Home
Verdicts
and
Decisions
Search Database
Recent Cases
Cases By Subject
Report A Case
Lawyers
Search Directory
By State & City
Add A
Lawyer Listing
Court
Reporters
Recent Listings
Search
By States & City
Add A Basic
Reporter Listing
Expert
Witnesses
Recent Listings
Search Directory
By State & Expertise
Add A Basic
Expert Witness
Listing
MoreLaw
Store
The Store
Recent Listings
(Search)
Add A Basic
Classified Ad
Links
County Seats
State Links
Information
About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Date: 11-14-2017

Case Style:

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN NEARY

Connecticut Appellate Court

Case Number: AC 38017

Judge: PER CURIAM

Court: Connecticut Appellate Court

Plaintiff's Attorney: Timothy F. Costello, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state’s attorney, and James Turcotte, supervisory assistant state’s attorney

Defendant's Attorney: David B. Rozwaski, special public defender

Description: The defendant, Stephen Neary, appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying his motion to correct an illegal sentence filed pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22. On February 7, 2013, pursuant toapleaagreement, thedefendantpleadednolocontendere to the charges of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a, assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167c, and carrying a dangerous weapon in violation of General Statutes § 53-206. The defendant also admittedtoviolatingconditionsofapreviouslyimposed probation. See General Statutes § 53a-32.1 On the same day, the court sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of seven years of incarceration, execution suspended after two and one-half years to serve, and two years of conditional discharge.
On March 4, 2014, the defendant filed the second of two motions to correct an illegal sentence in which he raised various claims regarding the legality of his sentence and the underlying conviction. The court denied the motion, and this appeal followed.
On August 30, 2017, we ordered the parties to ‘‘be prepared to address at oral argument (1) whether the sentenceimposedonthedefendantonFebruary7,2013, has been completed; and (2) if so, whether this appeal from the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to correct [an] illegal sentence has been rendered moot as a result.’’ At oral argument, the defendant conceded that he had completed the sentence that was imposed by the court on February 7, 2013, including the period of conditional discharge.

Outcome: In State v. Bradley, 137 Conn. App. 585, 587 n.1, 49 A.3d297,cert.denied,307Conn.939,56A.3d950(2012), this court held that an appeal from a motion to correct an illegal sentence is rendered moot if the defendant completes the sentence while the appeal is pending because this court cannot afford the defendant any practical relief as to that sentence. Accordingly, because the defendant has completed his sentence, his claims here regarding the legality of that sentence are moot.2

The appeal is dismissed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



 
 
Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2017 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.