State v. Meikle
A motion to correct an illegal sentence pursuant to Practice Book §43-22 must rest on the sentencing itself. Clyde Meikle was convicted of murder in 1998. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Meikle's two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus were resolved against him. He filed this pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence under Practice Book §43-22, alleging that the shotgun introduced at his trial was not, in fact, the murder weapon and the state fraudulently concealed this fact from his trial counsel. The court denied the motion. Meikle appealed. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment for form, concluding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion. The matter was remanded to the trial court with direction to render a judgment of dismissal. The defendant improperly sought to address a trial-related claim through a motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant argued that the sentencing court relied on inaccurate information, specifically, that the shotgun introduced at trial was not the actual murder weapon. The argument was not persuasive because an attack on the admissibility of evidence relates to the events occurring during the criminal trial and, thus, fell outside the narrow confines of Practice Book §43-22.