State of Connecticut v. Ryan Bryan

New Haven, Connecticut criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with felony possession of a firearm.

On April 25, 2018, the defendant pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (1), and criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). During the same plea hearing, the defendant also pleaded guilty to a part B information charging him with being a persistent dangerous felony offender in violation of § 53a-40 (a) (1).[4] As the basis for the persistent dangerous felony offender charge, the state alleged that the defendant previously had been convicted of attempt to commit assault in the first degree and that he had

been imprisoned for more than one year for such conviction. On July 18, 2018, the court, Clifford, J., sentenced the defendant to a term of seventeen years of incarceration, ten years of which was a mandatory minimum.



Substitute information charging the defendant with two counts of the crime of assault in the first degree and with one count each of the crimes of criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, criminal possession of a firearm, and carrying a pistol without a permit, and, in a part B information, with being a persistent dangerous felony offender, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, geographical area number seven, where the defendant was presented to the court, Clifford, J., on a plea of guilty to one count of assault in the first degree, criminal possession of a firearm, and being a persistent dangerous felony offender; judgment of guilty in accordance with the plea; thereafter, the state entered a nolle prosequi as to the remaining charges; subsequently, the court, Harmon, J., denied the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence.



* * *



''Our appellate courts have held that a trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a motion to correct challenging alleged flaws in the plea process.'' State v. King, 220 Conn.App. 549, 563, 300 A.3d 626, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 918, 303 A.3d 1194 (2023); see id. (court lacked jurisdiction over motion to correct claiming that court failed to conduct proper canvass and make statutorily required findings prior to accepting plea); see also State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356, 363 n.3, 968 A.2d 367 (2009) (''[t]o the extent that the defendant's claims are based on alleged flaws in the court's acceptance of his plea, Practice Book § 43-22 is clearly inapplicable''); State v. Boyd, 204 Conn.App. 446, 456-57, 253 A.3d 988 (court lacked jurisdiction over motion to correct that was ''nothing more than a collateral attack on the plea underlying the defendant's conviction rather than a true challenge to the legality of the sentence

imposed or to the sentencing proceedings''), cert. denied, 336 Conn. 951, 251 A.3d 617 (2021).



Key Phrases Guilty plea. Persistent dangerous felony offender. Illegal sentence. Subject matter jurisdiction. Procedural due process.

The form of the judgment is improper; the judgment denying the defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to render a judgment of dismissal.