State v. Arnold

State of Connecticut v. Earl Arnold

Nos. CR830103671, CR830103670

Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury, Waterbury

October 10, 2017

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

Roland D. Fasano, J.

By way of its Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence, petitioner moves to vacate its conviction and sentence on the charge of capital felony as illegal pursuant to Public Act 15-84 Sections 6-9 and, in conjunction with its conviction and sentence on the charge of murder, illegal as a double jeopardy violation.

Additionally by way of its Motion to File Late Response, petitioner moves for a new sentencing hearing, claiming that the sentencing court never imposed a valid sentence on the charge of murder and never expressed any specific sentencing intention with regard to the murder conviction. Petitioner further contends that the convictions and sentences for larceny and robbery also violate the protection against double jeopardy.

The state, by way of its Memorandum Of Law In Response To Defendant's Motion To Correct Illegal Sentence, concedes the issue with respect to the need to vacate the conviction and sentence on the charge of capital felony pursuant to Public Act 15-84, but requests that the court deny any further relief.

On September 13, 2017 a hearing was held on the above stated motions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On June 14, 1984, after convictions by jury, the presiding Judge Glass, J., imposed the following sentences with respect to charges presented in two separate informations: In the First Information, Third Count, charging capital felony, a definite sentence of (60) years; First Count, charging murder, a definite sentence of (60) years to run concurrently; Second Count, charging kidnapping, first degree, (25) years to run concurrently; In the Second Information, First Count charging larceny, first degree, (10) years to run consecutively to the first three counts of the First Information; Second Count, charging robbery, first degree (10) years to run concurrently with the count of larceny and consecutive to the other three sentences.

The total effective sentence was (70) years to serve.

At the hearing of September 13, 2017, based on the concession of the state regarding the conviction and imposition of sentence for capital felony and the agreement of the parties, this court vacated the conviction and sentence for capital felony and continued the matter for its decision with respect to the remaining issues raised by the parities.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Petitioner argues that simply vacating the capital felony conviction and sentence does not remedy the illegal sentence. Petitioner is entitled to a new sentencing hearing because a valid sentence for the murder charge was never imposed since the conviction and sentence for murder in conjunction with the conviction and sentence for capital felony constituted a violation of the double jeopardy clause and because the murder charge constituted a lesser included offense of capital felony.

Connecticut's policy with respect to multiple convictions for murder and manslaughter involving a single episode of homicide had not been clearly set and in place at the time of petitioner's sentencing in 1984. See State v. John, 210 Conn 652, 696-97, 557 A.2d 93 (1989). However, the test for determining lesser included offenses, Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), was, in fact, in place. As petitioner notes in its brief, the test for determining whether one offense is a lesser included of another, is whether it is possible to commit the greater offense in the manner described in the information or bill of particulars without having first committed the lesser offense. State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62, 301 A.2d 547 (1972).

In this matter, Count One of the information charges, in a single count, murder and felony murder committed during the course of the commission of a robbery. Count Three charges capital felony for murder by a kidnapper of kidnapped person. Clearly, the capital felony charge, as alleged, could be committed without committing the felony murder, as alleged. In fact, our Supreme Court determined there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find petitioner guilty of either murder or felony murder in the context of Count One of the First Information and affirmed petitioner's convictions, State v. Arnold, 201 Conn. 276, 514 A.2d 330 (1986); suggesting the validity of the convictions, at least, as of the date of the decision.

The state notes the lack of authority for petitioner's claim that, under the circumstances of this case, petitioner is entitled to a new sentencing hearing and cites State v. Graham, 149 Conn.App. 334, 346, 87 A.3d 1182 (2014) for the proposition that where multiple convictions result, some of which are later determined to be invalid, only the affected convictions must be vacated while the lawful convictions may stand. In State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125, 145, 545 A.2d 1026 (1988), where the defendant was convicted of capital felony for multiple murders committed in the course of a single transaction as well the underlying murders that formed the basis for the charge, the case was remanded to the trial court with direction to vacate the underlying murder convictions. No re-sentencing was required and, clearly, the conviction and sentence on the capital offense was deemed valid.

In further support of its position that a new sentencing hearing must be ordered, petitioner cites the petitions of Anthony Allen (HHD-CR05-0588501) and Jamaal Coltherst (HHD-CR99-0170354) where capitol felony charges were vacated pursuant to Public Act 15-84 and new sentencing hearings ordered. As the state noted in argument, both situations involved the re-sentencing of murder charges that had been merged by the trial court so that, in fact, no sentences had been imposed with respect to those charges at the time of the original sentencing.

Petitioner's second point in connection with the invalidity of the sentence imposed for murder is that the sentencing court never expressed any specific sentencing intention with regard to that charge.

The state responds that the trial court's intent in imposing the sentence for murder was clear, not only from the court's sentencing comments but also from the fact that the sentence imposed for the non-capital convictions exceeded the sentence imposed for capital felony.

A review of the sentencing transcript of June 14, 1984 suggests that the court, Glass, J., viewed the offenses as some of the most brutal and vicious conduct it had ever dealt with.

" . . . this is one of the most brutal, perhaps savage, and cruel murders that we have had here in this community, perhaps in the state . . . I think that the murder has just got out of hand, absolutely out of hand . . . what started off as a simple purse snatching escalated and ended up into a brutal and vicious murder. There is no justification for it whatsoever. This savage and brutal number of stab wounds that this woman suffered, there is actually no justification for that whatsoever that came out during the course of the trial in the evidence." (Transcript, p. 28)

" And, of course, for the purposes of this case, I have to say this...