Conn. App. 134, 703 A.2d 790 (1997), appeal dismissed,
247 Conn. 440, 721 A.2d 1193 (1999).
Thereafter, the defendant filed a series of motions
and petitions challenging his sentencing and confine-
ment.2 Among them, the defendant filed a habeas corpus
petition in 2000 claiming that defense counsel was inef-
fective for his failure to speak on the defendant’s behalf
at sentencing. The habeas court denied that claim, con-
cluding that the defendant failed to prove prejudice
because he did not identify any specific fact or argument
that competent counsel would have submitted. See Sin-
chak v. Commissioner of Correction, 126 Conn. App.
670, 681, 14 A.3d 348, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 901, 17
A.3d 1045 (2011). This court dismissed the defendant’s
appeal from the habeas court’s judgment; id., 683; and
the Supreme Court denied certification to appeal. Sin-
chak v. Commissioner of Correction, 301 Conn. 901,
17 A.3d 1045 (2011).
On June 20, 2023, the defendant filed the underlying
motion to correct an illegal sentence and request for
new sentencing, pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22. The
defendant argued, among other things, that defense
counsel provided no advocacy regarding mitigation at
his sentencing hearing. On July 5, 2023, the state filed
its objection.
Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court,
Preleski, J., granted the motion to correct and ordered a
2
See, e.g., Sinchak v. Warden, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland,
Docket No. CV-XX-XXXXXXX-S (June 29, 2007) (habeas petition denied); Sin-
chak v. Warden, Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. CV-
XX-XXXXXXX-S (August 28, 2014) (habeas petition denied); Sinchak v. Strange,
United States District Court, Docket No. 3:00-cv-00034 (SRU) (D. Conn.
August 29, 2017) (habeas petition dismissed); Sinchak v. Commissioner of
Correction, 173 Conn. App. 352, 355, 163 A.3d 1208 (affirming denial of
habeas petition), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 901, 169 A.3d 796 (2017); State v.
Sinchak, 205 Conn. App. 346, 367, 256 A.3d 671 (affirming denial of motion
to correct illegal sentence alleging vindictive or retaliatory motive by sen-
tencing judge), cert. denied, 338 Conn. 914, 259 A.3d 1179 (2021).
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 3