Legal Opinion

State v. St. Louis

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided October 15, 2013No. AC 34621PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

2Per curiam

A trial court generally loses jurisdiction over a sentence that it has imposed once that sentence has begun to be served. Practice Book § 43-22 embodies a common-law exception to this rule, wherein a trial court can at any time, even after the sentence has begun, correct an illegal sentence or sentence that has been illegally imposed. The principal issue in this *463case is whether the trial court has jurisdiction to address a motion to correct an illegal sentence, filed pursuant to § 43-22, where the defendant’s claim does not attack the legality of the sentence or the sentence…

3Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ajadi v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
  2. State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  3. State v. CasianoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  4. Hirschfeld v. MACHINISTSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
  5. State v. FowlkesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007

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

4Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. RoblesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
  2. State v. VivoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
  3. State v. ColemanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
  4. Chadwick St. Louis v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
  5. State v. McGeeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017

2 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