State v. St. Louis
Connecticut Appellate Court
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
- Ajadi v. Commissioner of CorrectionSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2006
- State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- State v. CasianoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Hirschfeld v. MACHINISTSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2011
- State v. FowlkesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by7 opinions
- State v. RoblesConnecticut Appellate Court · 2016
- State v. VivoConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
- State v. ColemanConnecticut Appellate Court · 2021
- Chadwick St. Louis v. Commissioner of CorrectionConnecticut Appellate Court · 2015
- State v. McGeeConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.