Hilton v. Warden, No. Cv-99-0593390 (Feb. 17, 2000)

Connecticut Superior Court

Hilton v. Warden, No. Cv-99-0593390 (Feb. 17, 2000)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2158

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedFebruary 17, 2000

DocketNo. CV-99-0593390

StatusUnpublished

This text of 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2158 (Hilton v. Warden, No. Cv-99-0593390 (Feb. 17, 2000)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hilton v. Warden, No. Cv-99-0593390 (Feb. 17, 2000), 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2158 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The petitioner brings this motion for reconsideration alleging that this court should entertain a petition for illegal sentence CT Page 2159 after the Appellate Court in State v. Hilton, 45 Conn. App. 207,208, footnote 2, described as a "scrivener's error" the use of the statute number 53a-54b in the substitute information as to the charge of murder. The mittimus Petitioner's Exhibit 1 also in error contained the number 53a-54b although the sentence was 45 years which is clearly not the penalty for capital felony, the crime designated as 53a-54b. The respondent has produced the substitute information, Respondent's Exhibit A, which contains the improper statutory number and a portion of the charge of the presiding judge, Respondent's Exhibit B, which demonstrates that the crime of murder was instructed properly.

This court concludes as does the Appellate Court that a scrivener's error occurred which has not resulted in an illegal sentence. The error may be corrected at any time. State v.Wilson, 199 Conn. 417, 436. Because there is no illegal confinement alleged, the court must deny the motion to reconsider.

For the above reasons the motion is denied.

Thomas H. Corrigan Judge Trial Referee

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION The petitioner brings this motion for reconsideration alleging that this court should entertain a petition for illegal sentence CT Page 2159 after the Appellate Court in State v. Hilton, 45 Conn. App. 207,208, footnote 2, described as a "scrivener's error" the use of the statute number 53a-54b in the substitute information as to the charge of murder. The mittimus Petitioner's Exhibit 1 also in error contained the number 53a-54b although the sentence was 45 years which is clearly not the penalty for capital felony, the crime designated as 53a-54b. The respondent has produced the substitute information, Respondent's Exhibit A, which contains the improper statutory number and a portion of the charge of the presiding judge, Respondent's Exhibit B, which demonstrates that the crime of murder was instructed properly.

This court concludes as does the Appellate Court that a scrivener's error occurred which has not resulted in an illegal sentence. The error may be corrected at any time. State v.Wilson, 199 Conn. 417, 436. Because there is no illegal confinement alleged, the court must deny the motion to reconsider.

For the above reasons the motion is denied.

Thomas H. Corrigan Judge Trial Referee

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 2158, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hilton-v-warden-no-cv-99-0593390-feb-17-2000-connsuperct-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack