Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal as improvidently granted. The appeal concerned whether consecutive sentences for second-degree strangulation and first-degree unlawful restraint violated General Statutes § 53a-64bb because the convictions allegedly arose from the same incident.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Appellate Court properly determined that the defendant's sentence was not illegal under General Statutes § 53a-64bb.
Holdings
- The appeal was dismissed because certification to appeal had been improvidently granted.
Key quotations
“we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.”
Factual background
The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree strangulation and one count of first-degree unlawful restraint. The trial court imposed consecutive terms resulting in an effective sentence of eight years of incarceration, suspended after four years, followed by three years of probation. The defendant claimed that both convictions arose from the same incident and therefore could not lawfully coexist under the strangulation statute.
Procedural history
Miranda pleaded guilty to second-degree strangulation and first-degree unlawful restraint and received consecutive sentences. He moved to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book § 43-22, arguing that the convictions arose from the same incident and violated § 53a-64bb (b). The trial court denied the motion, the Appellate Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court dismissed the certified appeal because certification had been improvidently granted.