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

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN NEARY

Date: 11-14-2017

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:

About This Case

What was the outcome of STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN NEARY?

The outcome was: 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.

Which court heard STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN NEARY?

This case was heard in Connecticut Appellate Court, CT. The presiding judge was PER CURIAM.

Who were the attorneys in STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN NEARY?

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.

When was STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEPHEN NEARY decided?

This case was decided on November 14, 2017.