Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Lawrence

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided January 11, 2005No. AC 24716Published

1DissentDranginis, J.

I disagree with the majority that the trial court had jurisdiction, pursuant to a motion to correct an illegal sentence, to consider the claim by the defendant, Tarrance Lawrence, that he was improperly convicted under the wrong statute. I therefore respectfully dissent.

The majority correctly sets forth some of the case law interpreting Practice Book § 43-22, which provides *796procedural authority by which a court may correct an illegal sentence. I agree with the majority that it is pursuant to this rule of practice that a defendant may attack the legality of his sentence or the legality of the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hill v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Bozza v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  3. In Re BonnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
  4. Murphy v. MassachusettsSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  5. United States v. Novenda L. CookCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1989

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API