Sec. 51-195. Application for review of sentence. - Connecticut Statutes

      Sec. 51-195. Application for review of sentence. Any person sentenced on one or more counts of an information to a term of imprisonment for which the total sentence of all such counts amounts to confinement for three years or more, may, within thirty days from the date such sentence was imposed or if the offender received a suspended sentence with a maximum confinement of three years or more, within thirty days of revocation of such suspended sentence, except in any case in which a different sentence could not have been imposed or in any case in which the sentence or commitment imposed resulted from the court's acceptance of a plea agreement or in any case in which the sentence imposed was for a lesser term than was proposed in a plea agreement, file with the clerk of the court for the judicial district in which the judgment was rendered an application for review of the sentence by the review division. Upon imposition of sentence or at the time of revocation of such suspended sentence, the clerk shall give written notice to the person sentenced of his right to make such a request. Such notice shall include a statement that review of the sentence may result in decrease or increase of the term within the limits fixed by law. A form for making such application shall accompany the notice. The clerk shall forthwith transmit such application to the review division and shall notify the judge who imposed the sentence. Such judge may transmit to the review division a statement of his reasons for imposing the sentence, and shall transmit such a statement within seven days if requested to do so by the review division. The filing of an application for review shall not stay the execution of the sentence.

      (1957, P.A. 436, S. 2; September, 1957, P.A. 14, S. 2; 1963, P.A. 584, S. 1; P.A. 73-616, S. 44; P.A. 75-567, S. 30, 80; P.A. 77-224; P.A. 78-191; 78-280, S. 2, 127; 78-379, S. 7, 27; P.A. 80-442, S. 8, 28.)

      History: 1963 act included commitment to Connecticut Reformatory; P.A. 73-616 replaced State Prison, State Prison for Women and Connecticut Reformatory with Connecticut Correctional Institutions in Somers, Niantic and Cheshire, deleted specific reference to "superior" court in provision re filing of applications for review of sentence and added reference to judicial districts and circuits; P.A. 75-567 deleted reference to circuits, circuit court functions having been transferred to common pleas court by P.A. 74-183; P.A. 77-224 deleted specific reference to Somers and Niantic Correctional Institutions; P.A. 78-191 deleted reference to Cheshire correctional institution and specified that filing for sentence review is not allowed where sentence imposed results from plea agreement or is less than that proposed in such an agreement; P.A. 78-280 deleted reference to counties; P.A. 78-379 deleted specific references to commitments to Correctional Institution at Cheshire, clarified applicability re one-year term of imprisonment to specify one or more counts of an information for which total sentence is one year or more, applied provisions to offenders who received suspended sentence for which maximum confinement was one year or more and deleted requirement that chief justice be notified of clerk's receipt of application for review; P.A. 80-442 applied provisions to cases where total confinement would be three or more years rather than one year or more and specified that sentenced person be informed that sentence review may result in increase or decrease of term within limits of law rather than in increase or decrease of "maximum or minimum" term within limits of law, effective July 1, 1981.

      A convicted person is afforded an opportunity for what is, in effect, a limited appeal for a reconsideration of the sentence. The jeopardy, so far as the sentence is concerned, is a single, continuing one, and any change in the sentence results from the sentenced person's own voluntary act. There is no double jeopardy. 149 C. 692. Cited. 152 C. 630. Petitioner has constitutional right to counsel at hearing before sentence review division. 153 C. 673, 677. Prohibition against putting anyone in double jeopardy is a fundamental principle of common law recognized by Connecticut courts although not a state constitutional provision. Correction of a mistake by review division is not double jeopardy. 156 C. 598. Plaintiff in petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging unlawful confinement has a right to have his sentence reviewed by the review division of the superior court. 168 C. 254. Cited. Id., 623. Cited. 187 C. 109. Cited. 192 C. 471. "Plea agreement" as used in section means an agreement to a sentence of a specific term of years. 214 C. 195. Cited. Id., 717. Cited. 217 C. 810. Cited. 220 C. 400. Cited. 224 C. 347. Cited. 230 C. 183. Cited. 243 C. 339. Thirty-day limit does not act as jurisdictional bar to sentence review division's consideration of an application for sentence review that was delayed by reason of ineffective assistance of counsel. 245 C. 132.

      Cited. 1 CA 724. Cited. 19 CA 48; Id., 631. Cited. 23 CA 201; Id., 564; judgment reversed in part, see 220 C. 400. Cited. 27 CA 705. Cited. 37 CA 801. Cited. 46 CA 486.

      Cited. 22 CS 204. In 1960 the court revoked the suspension of a sentence which has been imposed in 1957. As to that sentence, the review division is without power to act, because an application to review it would have to be filed within thirty days after January 1, 1958. Id., 270. Cited. 25 CS 473. Cited. 26 CS 186. Where court clerk failed to give defendant notice of his right to file application for review of commitment until after appeal was dismissed, review division entertained application on merits although not filed within thirty days after sentence. 27 CS 78. When defendant filed application for review of his sentence only after his probation was revoked, held review division had no authority to consider it since application was not filed within thirty days of original sentencing date. Id., 108; Id., 128. Cited. Id., 150. Review division is a statutory body and has only such jurisdiction as is conferred on it by statute; hence cannot consider application filed more than two years after sentencing. 28 CS 196. Application to sentence review board must be filed within thirty days of imposition of sentence or board has no jurisdiction. 29 CS 133. Persons sentenced under section 19-499 (19a-388) should not have their sentence review period run until court has finished its final review. Id., 137. Sentence Review Division has no jurisdiction to consider application filed beyond thirty-day limit. Id., 203. Review division has no jurisdiction to review an application filed beyond the statutory limit of thirty days. Id., 236. Cited. 42 CS 371.

      Cited. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 416.