******************************************************

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. NUNO MIRANDA

(SC 19194)

Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa and

Robinson, Js.

Argued January 12—officially released February 17, 2015

David V. DeRosa, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).

Emily Graner Sexton, special deputy assistant state’s

attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin D.

Lawlor, state’s attorney, and Marjorie L. Sozanski,

senior assistant state’s attorney, forthe appellee (state).
Opinion

PER CURIAM. The defendant, Nuno Miranda,

pleaded guilty to one count each of strangulation in the

second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a64bb and unlawful restraint in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95. The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the pleas and

sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms of four

years of incarceration, suspended after two years, and

three years of probation, for a total effective sentence

of eight years of incarceration, suspended after four

years, and three years of probation. The defendant subsequently filed a motion pursuant to Practice Book § 43-

22 to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant argued,

inter alia, that his sentence was illegal because it was

imposed on separate convictions for what he claimed

was ‘‘the same incident’’ and, therefore, it violated the

terms of the strangulation statute which provides in

relevant part that ‘‘[n]o person shall be found guilty of

strangulation in the second degree and unlawful

restraint or assault upon the same incident . . . .’’ General Statutes § 53a-64bb (b). The trial court denied the

motion, concluding that each of the defendant’s pleas

and resulting sentences was based on a separate incident within the meaning of § 53a-64bb (b). The defendant then appealed to the Appellate Court, which

affirmed the judgment of the trial court. State v.

Miranda, 142 Conn. App. 657, 666, 64 A.3d 1268 (2013).

Thereafter, we granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did

the Appellate Court properly determine that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not illegal pursuant

to . . . § 53a-64bb?’’ State v. Miranda, 310 Conn. 902,

75 A.3d 29 (2013).

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.