State v. McElveen
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Connecticut Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Connecticut Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
After a criminal trial, a jury found Defendant William McElveen to be a persistent larceny offender. Defendant was sentenced accordingly. Defendant filed a motion to modify his sentence and later appealed. The appellate court (1) determined that the trial court's grant of Defendant's motion and its vacation of Defendant's sentence enhancement for being a persistent larceny offender, while Defendant's appeal was pending, rendered the appeal moot; and (2) concluded that the jury's finding that Defendant was a persistent larceny offender was not a conviction but rather an enhanced sentence, and that vacating the sentence enhancement eliminated the only legal consequence of the larceny offender finding. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's petition for certification to decide whether the sole appropriate relief in the present case was the elimination of the sentence enhancement or whether, as Defendant argued, the case was not moot under the collateral consequences doctrine. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, determining that the certification was improvidently granted.
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. WILLIAM MCELVEEN (SC 18522) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella and McLachlan, Js.* Argued September 9 officially released November 1, 2011 Deborah G. Stevenson, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state s attorney, David J. Strollo, supervisory assistant state s attorney, Helen McClellan, assistant state s attorney, and Karen Roberg, deputy assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, William McElveen appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing his appeal as moot. State v. McElveen, 117 Conn. App. 486, 493, 979 A.2d 604 (2009). The Appellate Court determined that the trial court s grant of the defendant s motion to modify his sentence and its vacation of the defendant s sentence enhancement for being a persistent larceny offender,2 while his appeal was pending before the Appellate Court, rendered the appeal moot. Id., 491. The Appellate Court concluded that the jury s finding that the defendant is a persistent larceny offender is not a conviction, but rather an enhanced sentence, and that vacating the sentence enhancement eliminated the only legal consequence of the persistent larceny offender finding. Id. In this certified appeal, the defendant contends that this case is not moot under the collateral consequences doctrine. He argues that he could be subjected to enhanced penalties as a result of his persistent larceny offender conviction if he were to commit a crime in the future because his criminal history record does not adequately and meaningfully reflect the trial court s action in vacating the persistent larceny offender finding. After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. * This case originally was scheduled to be argued before a panel of this court consisting of Chief Justice Rogers and Justices Norcott, Palmer, Zarella and McLachlan. Although Chief Justice Rogers was not present when the case was argued before the court, she read the record and briefs and listened to the oral argument prior to participating in this decision. 1 We granted the defendant s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issues: 1. Whether the sole appropriate relief in the present case was the elimination of the sentence enhancement pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-40? 2. If the answer to the first question is no, did the Appellate Court properly dismiss the appeal as moot? State v. McElveen, 294 Conn. 924, 985 A.2d 1063 (2010). 2 The jury found the defendant to be a persistent larceny offender under General Statutes § 53a-40 (e), which provides in relevant part: A persistent larceny offender is a person who (1) stands convicted of larceny in the . . . sixth degree, and (2) has been, at separate times prior to the commission of the present larceny, twice convicted of the crime of larceny. The defendant had previously been convicted of larceny in the sixth degree and attempt to commit larceny in the sixth degree. State v. McElveen, supra, 117 Conn. App. 488 n.2.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
