court had not resentenced the defendant before the
appeal was filed.5
We begin our analysis by recognizing that ‘‘[t]he lack
of a final judgment implicates the subject matter juris-
diction of an appellate court to hear an appeal. A deter-
mination regarding . . . subject matter jurisdiction is
a question of law . . . . We commence the discussion
of our appellate jurisdiction by recognizing that there
is no constitutional right to an appeal . . . . Article
fifth, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution provides for
a Supreme Court, a Superior Court and such lower
courts as the [G]eneral [A]ssembly shall . . . ordain
and establish, and that [t]he powers and jurisdiction of
these courts shall be defined by law. . . . To consider
the . . . claims [raised in the motion to dismiss], we
must apply the law governing our appellate jurisdiction,
which is statutory. . . . The legislature has enacted
. . . [General Statutes] § 52-263, which limits the right
of appeal to those appeals filed by aggrieved parties on
issues of law from final judgments.’’ (Citation omitted;
emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.)
Smith v. Supple, 346 Conn. 928, 936–37, 293 A.3d 851
(2023).
‘‘Adherence to the final judgment rule is not dictated
by legislative fiat alone. It has long been this court’s
policy to discourage piecemeal appeals, particularly in
criminal proceedings. . . . The appealable final judg-
ment in a criminal case is ordinarily the imposition of
sentence.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks
omitted.) State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 30–31, 463 A.2d
566 (1983). An otherwise interlocutory order is consid-
ered a final judgment pursuant to § 52-263 and for pur-
5
At the time this court issued its order granting the motion to dismiss,
the defendant had not been resentenced, and the state had not filed an
amended appeal from any such judgment. Had the defendant been resen-
tenced during the pendency of this appeal, however, the state could have
filed an amended appeal from that final judgment, pursuant to Practice Book
§ 61-9, and that amended appeal would have been jurisdictionally proper.
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 5