new sentencing hearing. In its memorandum of decision
issued on December 27, 2023, the court concluded that
the defendant was effectively abandoned by defense
counsel at his sentencing, in deprivation of his sixth
amendment right to counsel at a critical stage of the
proceedings.
On January 4, 2024, the state, pursuant to General
Statutes § 54-963 and Practice Book § 61-6 (b),4 filed a
motion for permission to appeal. On January 10, 2024,
the defendant filed an objection arguing a lack of appel-
late jurisdiction arising from a lack of finality because
the trial court had not yet resentenced him. In denying
the state’s motion on January 11, 2024, the court rea-
soned that the ‘‘granting [of] a motion to correct an
illegal sentence is not a final judgment from which an
appeal may be taken. It becomes a final judgment upon
resentencing. It is the imposition of sentence that con-
stitutes a final judgment in a criminal matter.’’ This
appeal followed.
As of the date that the state filed its appeal, January
23, 2024, the trial court had not resentenced the defen-
dant. On May 29, 2024, the defendant filed this motion to
dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
due to the lack of a final judgment. See Practice Book
§ 66-8 (motion to dismiss challenging this court’s juris-
diction may be filed at any time). On June 7, 2024,
the state timely filed its opposition. For the following
reasons, we conclude that the appeal must be dismissed
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the trial
3
General Statutes § 54-96 provides: ‘‘Appeals from the rulings and deci-
sions of the Superior Court, upon all questions of law arising on the trial
of criminal cases, may be taken by the state, with the permission of the
presiding judge, to the Supreme Court or to the Appellate Court, in the same
manner and to the same effect as if made by the accused.’’
4
Practice Book § 61-6 (b) provides in relevant part: ‘‘The state, with the
permission of the presiding judge of the trial court and as provided by law,
may appeal from a final judgment. . . .’’
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0