****************************************************** 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 subjectto modification andtechnical 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 ConnecticutAppellate 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 andinthe Connecticut LawJournal andboundvolumes 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. RONNIE OVESEN (AC 37630)
Beach, Sheldon and Harper, Js.*
Submitted on briefs December 1, 2016—officially released April 11, 2017 (Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Damiani, J. [judgment]; Fasano, J. [motion

to correct]) StephanE. Seeger, assigned counsel, filed a brieffor the appellant (defendant).
MaureenPlatt, state’s attorney, CatherineBrannelly Austin, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, andLisa A. Riggione, senior assistant state’s attorney, filed a brief for the appellee (state).Opinion BEACH, J. The defendant, Ronnie Ovesen, appeals from the trial court’s judgment granting his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant had been convicted of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2008) § 53a-70 (a) (1)1 and one count of strangulation in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a64bb. On appeal, the defendant argues that, upon grantinghis motionandresentencinghim, the courtimposed

an illegal sentence. We reverse thejudgment ofthe trial court and remand the case with direction to reinstate the defendant’s original sentence.
In September, 2009, the defendantpleadedguiltypursuant to the Alford doctrine2 to one count of sexual assaultinthefirstdegreeandone countofstrangulation in the second degree. The defendant was sentenced on thefirstcounttotwentyyearsincarceration, suspended after eleven and one-half years, with ten years probation, and on the second count to one year ofincarceration to run concurrently, for a total effective sentence of twenty years incarceration, suspended after eleven and one-half years, with ten years probation. Approximately four years later, the defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, alleging that because his sentence included a period ofprobation, rather than a periodofspecialparole, itviolatedourSupreme Court’s holding in State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163, 193–94, 20 A.3d 669 (Victor O. I

), cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 583, 181 L. Ed. 2d 429 (2011), and was unlawful under§ 53a-70. Thestateconcededbeforethetrialcourt that the defendant’s original sentence was illegal, and the court, Fasano, J., vacated the defendant’s original sentence and imposed a new total effective sentence of eleven and one-halfyears incarceration followed by eight and one-half years of special parole. The defendant appealed, claiming that the new sentence was illegal, as well.
At the time ofthe defendant’s resentencing, both the parties and the court interpreted our Supreme Court’s holding in Victor O. I to mean that a person convicted of sexual assault under § 53a-70 must be sentenced to a period of imprisonment and special parole. Our Supreme Court has since clarified that Victor O. I shouldnotbe interpretedinthis manner. Statev. Victor O., 320 Conn. 239, 247, 128 A.3d 940 (2016) (Victor O. II ) (‘‘[t]o the extent that anything we may have said [in VictorO. I] canbe construed as decidingthe somewhat challenging question of statutory interpretation presented by the present appeal, it was not our intention to do so’’); see id., 247–48 n.9. Instead, the court in Victor O. I ‘‘intended only to explain that probation

was prohibited and that special parole was the only form ofsupervisedrelease that couldbe imposed’’; Victor O. II

, supra, 248 n.9; in sentencing a defendantconvicted ofa class A felony. Id., 246. Victor O. IIheld that § 53a-70 does not require a court to impose any periodofspecialparole. Id., 242, 258. Becausethedefendant in the present case was convicted of a class B felony, there is no such restriction on the imposition of probation. Accordingly, the original sentence oftwenty years incarceration, suspended after eleven and onehalf years, with ten years of probation to follow, did not violate § 53a-70, and the sentence therefore was not illegal.3
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to vacate the defendant’s second sentence and to reinstate his original sentence.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.

* The listing of judges reflects their seniority status on this court as of the date of oral argument.

1 General Statutes § 53a-70 was amended by No. 15-211, § 16, ofthe 2015 Public Acts. The events underlying the defendant’s conviction occurred in 2008. Accordingly, unless otherwise indicated, all references to § 53a-70 in this opinion are to the 2008 revision of the statute.

2 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37, 91 S. Ct. 160, 27 L. Ed. 2d 162 (1970).

3 Although this construction does not appear to have been advanced in the trial court, we understand that the parties and the court relied on a reasonable, butultimatelymistaken, interpretation ofVictorO. I

. Initsbrief, the state advanced the argument, which we now adopt, and the defendant had the opportunity to respond. Although the error was not preserved, we nonetheless reach the issue pursuant to our supervisory authority because, in light of our Supreme Court’s decision in Victor O. II , there functionally has been an intervening change in the law. SeeBlumbergAssociates Worldwide, Inc. v. Brown & Brown of Connecticut, Inc., 311 Conn. 123,159, 84 A.3d 840 (2014).