State v. Brescia

****************************************************** 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 Connecti- cut 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 Con- necticut 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 repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************  STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MARK BRESCIA (SC 18739) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued September 20—officially released October 23, 2012 Martin Zeldes, public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Laurie N. Feldman, special deputy assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dear- ington, state’s attorney, and James Turcotte, supervi- sory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).  Opinion PER CURIAM. On March 10, 2006, during criminal sentencing proceedings, the trial court found the defen- dant, Mark Brescia, to be in contempt of the court and, following a summary contempt proceeding at which the defendant admitted that his conduct constituted contempt, sentenced him to six months imprisonment. See General Statutes § 51-33; Practice Book § 1-16. On September 17, 2008, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence or disposition pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22 (motion to correct), claiming that the contempt sentence was imposed in an illegal man- ner, thereby rendering it invalid. On February 27, 2009, the trial court dismissed the defendant’s motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction after concluding that the defendant’s sole remedy was by writ of error. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the defendant’s motion to correct for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. State v. Brescia, 123 Conn. App. 342, 347, 1 A.3d 1145 (2010). We then granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal to this court limited to the follow- ing issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant’s Practice Book § 43-22 motion to correct an illegal sentence imposed after a summary criminal contempt proceeding pursuant to General Stat- utes § 51-33?’’ State v. Brescia, 300 Conn. 901, 12 A.3d 574 (2011). After examining the entire record on appeal and con- sidering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.