State v. Henderson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. 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 electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and 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 Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. DANIEL J. HENDERSON (AC 23674) Dranginis, Bishop and Dupont, Js. Argued February 13 officially released April 13, 2004 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, geographical area number seventeen, Kocay, J.) Daniel J. Henderson, pro se, the appellant (defendant). Nancy L. Chupak, assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state s attorney, and Michael A. Gailor, assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Daniel J. Henderson, appeals from the trial court s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court s conclusion that it had no authority to act on his motion was premised on its mischaracterization of the motion as a request for a sentence modification and that this misunderstanding deprived him of an opportunity to be heard. We agree and reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings. The following procedural history is relevant to our disposition of this appeal. After trial by jury, the defendant was convicted on two counts of larceny in the sixth degree and one count of forgery in the second degree. He then pleaded guilty to being a persistent larceny offender and to committing the charged offenses while free on pretrial release in connection with another unrelated criminal matter. On January 24, 1995, when the defendant failed to appear in court for his scheduled sentencing, the court committed him, in absentia, to the commissioner of correction for an effective period of fifteen years incarceration. Following sentencing, the defendant appealed from his conviction unsuccessfully. Additionally, he filed a petition for sentence review that was denied. The defendant also filed two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Both petitions were dismissed. Thereafter, on October 21, 2002, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22.1 In response, the court issued a memorandum of decision in which it stated: [General Statutes] § 53a-39 allows the court to modify a definite sentence of three years or less after [a] hearing and [for] good cause. The sentence imposed in the case at bar exceeds the three year statutory period. The sentencing court is thereby foreclosed from further action. The petitioner may petition the sentence review division of the Superior Court for modification of the sentence imposed. This court is without authority to act. Accordingly, the defendant s motion is denied. Clearly, the court understood the defendant s motion as one to modify a sentence. It is equally apparent that the court mistakenly declined to afford the defendant a hearing on his motion on the basis of its perception that it had no authority to act. Although the defendant s pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence is in part disjointed and rambling, a fair reading of the assertions set forth therein leads us inescapably to the view that through the motion, the defendant sought to bring to the court s attention the factual bases of a claim that his sentence had been imposed in an illegal manner.2 The judgment is reversed only as to the denial of the motion to correct an illegal sentence and the case is remanded for a hearing on the motion. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects. 1 Practice Book § 43-22 provides: The judicial authority may at any time correct an illegal sentence or other illegal disposition, or it may correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner or any other disposition made in an illegal manner. 2 Our determination that the defendant is entitled to a hearing on his motion should not be understood as an endorsement of the substantive claims in his motion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
