Background
Erick Bennett was convicted of murder after a jury trial and, in 2011, was sentenced to fifty years’ incarceration. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed his conviction in 2017. More than twelve years after sentence execution, Bennett filed a self-represented motion in his criminal case seeking to open or vacate the conviction on the ground of alleged fraud.
The motion raised numerous allegations concerning the investigation, evidence, prosecution, counsel, and prior postconviction proceedings. The trial court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Bennett had begun serving his sentence. It also stated, alternatively, that collateral estoppel barred the claims.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court agreed that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Under Connecticut common law, a criminal court generally loses jurisdiction once a defendant begins serving a sentence, absent an unambiguous statutory or constitutional exception. No statute authorizes reopening a criminal judgment after sentence execution on a fraud theory.
The court declined to recognize a new common-law exception modeled on the civil rule allowing judgments procured by fraud to be opened. Criminal defendants already have legislatively provided avenues to challenge alleged fraud, including a petition for a new trial and habeas corpus. Bennett’s allegations also largely repackaged issues litigated, or capable of being litigated, in earlier proceedings rather than presenting previously undiscoverable evidence supporting a colorable fraud claim.
Because a court without subject-matter jurisdiction may not reach the merits, the proper disposition was dismissal, not denial. The Appellate Court reversed only the form of the judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss the motion.
Key Takeaways
- A Connecticut criminal court generally loses jurisdiction after a defendant begins serving the sentence.
- Calling a postconviction challenge “fraud on the court” does not itself create jurisdiction to reopen a final criminal judgment.
- When subject-matter jurisdiction is absent, the required disposition is dismissal rather than denial on the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality limits on post-sentence criminal motions to open in Connecticut. It also directs defendants alleging fraud toward existing postconviction procedures, rather than an unrecognized freestanding motion to reopen a criminal judgment.