poses of appeal ‘‘(1) where the order or action termi-
nates a separate and distinct proceeding, or (2) where
the order or action so concludes the rights of the parties
that further proceedings cannot affect them.’’ Id., 31. By
contrast, an interlocutory order is not a final judgment
if it is ‘‘merely a step along the road to final judgment.’’
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hartford Acci-
dent & Indemnity Co. v. Ace American Reinsurance
Co., 279 Conn. 220, 226, 901 A.2d 1164 (2006).
On granting a motion to correct an illegal sentence,
the ‘‘court possesses the sole authority . . . [to] resen-
tence a defendant if it is determined that the original
sentence was illegal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit-
ted.) State v. Casiano, 282 Conn. 614, 625, 922 A.2d
1065 (2007). Our appellate courts have jurisdiction to
consider an appeal from the granting of a motion to
correct an illegal sentence after resentencing. See, e.g.,
State v. Jason B., 320 Conn. 259, 261, 128 A.3d 937
(2016) (considering defendant’s appeal and state’s cross
appeal from order partially granting defendant’s motion
to correct illegal sentence and subsequent resentenc-
ing). Neither our Supreme Court nor this court has
addressed, however, whether the state can appeal from
the granting of a motion to correct an illegal sentence
before the defendant has been resentenced.
That is the situation that confronts us in the present
case, where the trial court only identified a sentencing
error but did not resentence the defendant. The court
therefore had not yet determined whether that error
would have any impact on the defendant’s sentence
before the state filed this appeal.6
The state, although recognizing the general rule that
the final judgment in a criminal case occurs upon the
6
It follows that the state—and, for that matter, the defendant—cannot
know whether it will be aggrieved by the new sentence and, if so, the
grounds on which the new sentence may be challenged on appeal.
Page 6 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0