State v. Arnold


*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EARL ARNOLD (AC 40489) Bright, C. J., and Moll and Harper, Js. Syllabus The defendant, who had been convicted of the crimes of murder, kidnapping, capital felony, larceny in the first degree and robbery in the first degree and sentenced to a total effective term of seventy years of imprisonment without the possibility of parole, appealed from the judgment of the trial court denying in part his motion to correct an illegal sentence. At the hearing on his motion, the defendant, who was seventeen years old at the time he committed the crimes, claimed that his capital felony conviction and sentence had to be vacated because, under No. 15-84 of the 2015 Public Acts, individuals who were juveniles at the time of their offense no longer could be sentenced for capital felony and that the remainder of his sentence was illegal because the sentencing court violated the prohibition against double jeopardy by imposing his sen- tence for murder in conjunction with his sentence for capital felony. The trial court vacated the defendant’s capital felony conviction and sentence but denied any further relief. Held that the defendant’s claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that his right to due process was violated because the sentencing court relied on materially inaccurate information at his sentencing, namely, that it failed to recognize, as required by Miller v. Alabama (567 U.S. 460) and State v. Riley (315 Conn. 637), that juveniles are different from adults for purposes of sentencing, was not reviewable under State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), the record having been inadequate for review. Argued May 12—officially released July 20, 2021 Procedural History Substitute information, in the first case, charging the defendant with the crimes of murder, kidnapping in the first degree and capital felony, and substitute informa- tion, in the second case, charging the defendant with the crimes of …

Original document

Add comment


Recent Posts

Recent Comments