Court Opinion

ID: 9960085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-15 12:02:03.064166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:10.115665
License: Public Domain

************************************************
   The “officially released” date that appears near the
beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be
published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it
is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the
beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopin-
ion motions and petitions for certification is the “offi-
cially released” date appearing in the opinion.
   All opinions are subject to modification and technical
correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event
of discrepancies between the advance release version of
an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecti-
cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest
version is to be considered authoritative.
  The syllabus and procedural history accompanying
an opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Jour-
nal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or
Connecticut Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the
Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may
not be reproduced or distributed without the express
written permission of the Commission on Official Legal
Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
************************************************
Page 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                   0, 0

         2                       ,0                         0 Conn. App. 827
                                       State v. Berrios

                    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EDWIN
                            EDDIE BERRIOS
                              (AC 46463)
                               Clark, Seeley and Prescott, Js.

                                          Syllabus

         The defendant, who had been convicted, on a plea of guilty, of the crime
            of burglary in the first degree as a persistent felony offender, appealed
            to this court from the judgment of the trial court denying his motions
            to withdraw his guilty plea, which were filed nearly three months after
            he had begun serving his sentence. The defendant previously had been
            charged with several crimes in addition to burglary, including assault
            in the third degree and criminal mischief in the third degree. A jury
            found the defendant guilty on the assault count and not guilty on the
            criminal mischief count but was unable to reach a unanimous verdict
            on the remaining charges. The trial court declared a mistrial as to those
            charges, and the state, in a new docket, subsequently charged the defen-
            dant with those crimes, including the burglary count, and with being a
            persistent felony offender. Held that the defendant could not prevail on
            his claim that the trial court improperly denied his motions to withdraw
            his guilty plea in which he challenged his conviction on double jeopardy
            grounds, namely, that his prior conviction of assault and acquittal of
            criminal mischief precluded the state from retrying him on the charge
            of burglary in the first degree: because the defendant already had begun
            serving his sentence at the time he filed his motions, the trial court
            no longer had jurisdiction to decide the motions, which could not be
            construed as challenging the defendant’s sentence, and the defendant
            did not claim, nor could this court conclude after reviewing the motions,
            that any legislative or constitutional grant of continuing jurisdiction
            applied that would have allowed the trial court to retain jurisdiction
            over the motions; accordingly, although the trial court properly rejected
            the defendant’s postsentencing motions, the form of the court’s judgment
            was improper, as the court should have dismissed, rather than denied,
            the motions, and the case was remanded to the trial court with direction
            to render judgment dismissing the motions.
                   Argued January 29—officially released April 16, 2024

                                     Procedural History

            Two part information charging the defendant, in the
         first part, with the crimes of burglary in the first degree,
         burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third
         degree, and, in the second part, with being a persistent
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 1

       0 Conn. App. 827                         ,0             3
                             State v. Berrios

       felony offender, brought to the Superior Court in the
       judicial district of Danbury, where the defendant was
       presented to the court, Pavia, J., on pleas of guilty to
       burglary in the first degree and being a persistent felony
       offender; thereafter, the state entered a nolle prosequi
       as to the charges of burglary in the second degree and
       robbery in the third degree; judgment in accordance
       with the pleas; subsequently, the court, Stango, J.,
       denied the defendant’s motions to vacate and to dismiss,
       and the defendant appealed to this court. Improper
       form of judgment; reversed; judgment directed.
         Edwin Eddie Berrios, self-represented, the appellant
       (defendant).
          Timothy F. Costello, supervisory assistant state’s
       attorney, with whom, on the brief, were David R.
       Applegate, state’s attorney, and Matthew Knopf, assis-
       tant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
                                Opinion

          SEELEY, J. The self-represented defendant, Edwin
       Eddie Berrios, who had been convicted following his
       guilty plea to a charge of burglary in the first degree,
       appeals from the judgment of the trial court denying
       certain motions he filed after he was sentenced (post-
       sentencing motions), in which he challenged his convic-
       tion on double jeopardy grounds. The defendant initially
       had been tried on the charge of burglary in the first
       degree, but after the jury was unable to reach a unani-
       mous verdict on that charge, among others, the court
       declared a mistrial. The state subsequently charged him
       under a new criminal docket number with various
       crimes, including burglary in the first degree, after
       which he entered his guilty plea to that charge. On
       appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court’s judg-
       ment denying his postsentencing motions and raises a
       number of arguments in support of his claim that the
       state was precluded from seeking to prosecute him
Page 2                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

         4                         ,0                          0 Conn. App. 827
                                        State v. Berrios

         again for burglary in the first degree following the mis-
         trial on that count.1 In response, the state argues, inter
         alia, that the court lacked jurisdiction to decide the
         defendant’s motions because they were filed after the
         court had sentenced the defendant.2 We agree with the
         state that the court lacked jurisdiction over the defen-
         dant’s postsentencing motions,3 and that, therefore, the
         form of the judgment is improper, as the court should
         have dismissed rather than denied the motions. We,
         thus, reverse the judgment denying the defendant’s
         postsentencing motions and remand the case with
         direction to render judgment dismissing those motions.
           The following facts and procedural history are rele-
         vant to this appeal. The defendant was arrested in May,
         2019, following an incident in which he entered an
         unlocked apartment in Danbury and attempted to take
         a small safe. During the incident, the resident4 of the
         apartment returned home, confronted and fought the
         defendant, and eventually overpowered him. At that
         point, the resident was able to call the police, who
         arrested the defendant at the scene. He subsequently
         was charged, under Docket No. XX-XXXXXXX-S, with one
             1
              See footnotes 8 and 10 of this opinion.
             2
              The state also argues, in the alternative, that the defendant waived his
         double jeopardy claims regarding the charge of burglary in the first degree
         when he unconditionally pleaded guilty to that charge and that the defen-
         dant’s claims fail on the merits because there was no double jeopardy
         violation. Because we conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction, we
         do not reach these alternative arguments.
            3
              The state acknowledges in its appellate brief that it failed to raise the
         issue of jurisdiction before the trial court. The issue of subject matter
         jurisdiction, however, may be raised by a party at any time, including on
         appeal. See, e.g., State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770, 777 n.11, 189 A.3d 1184
         (2018), cert. denied,      U.S.    , 139 S. Ct. 1304, 203 L. Ed. 2d 425 (2019).
            4
              In accordance with federal law; see 18 U.S.C. § 2265 (d) (3) (2018), as
         amended by the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization Act of 2022,
         Pub. L. No. 117-103, § 106, 136 Stat. 49, 851; we decline to identify any person
         protected or sought to be protected under a protection order, protective
         order, or a restraining order that was issued or applied for, or others through
         whom that person’s identity may be ascertained.
0, 0                       CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                               Page 3

       0 Conn. App. 827                               ,0                    5
                                   State v. Berrios

       count each of burglary in the first degree in violation
       of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (2), robbery in the
       third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-136
       (a), assault in the third degree in violation of General
       Statutes § 53a-61 (a) (1), attempt to commit larceny in
       the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-
       49 and 53a-125b, and criminal mischief in the third
       degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-117 (a) (1).

         The jury found the defendant guilty of assault in the
       third degree and not guilty of criminal mischief in the
       third degree. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous
       verdict with respect to the remaining charges, and the
       court declared a mistrial as to those counts. The state
       subsequently filed a long form information under a new
       criminal docket number, Docket No. XX-XXXXXXX-A,
       charging the defendant with burglary in the first degree,
       burglary in the second degree, and robbery in the third
       degree. The state also filed a part B information charg-
       ing the defendant with being a persistent felony
       offender.

         On July 13, 2022, the defendant entered into an agree-
       ment with the state and pleaded guilty to the charge of
       burglary in the first degree as a persistent felony
       offender. The court canvassed the defendant and found
       that his plea was ‘‘entered knowingly and voluntarily
       with the assistance of competent counsel.’’ The court
       accepted the defendant’s plea and sentenced him in
       accordance with the plea agreement. On the charge of
       burglary in the first degree as a persistent felony
       offender, the court imposed a sentence of twenty-five
       years of incarceration, execution suspended after five
       years, followed by five years of probation.5 The state
         5
           In the prior case, under Docket No. XX-XXXXXXX-S, the court imposed
       a consecutive sentence of 364 days of incarceration for the defendant’s
       conviction of assault in the third degree.
Page 4                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

         6                        ,0                          0 Conn. App. 827
                                        State v. Berrios

         entered a nolle prosequi6 on each of the remaining
         charges.
           Nearly three months after his sentencing, the defen-
         dant filed the first of several postsentencing motions
         that are at issue in this appeal. Specifically, those
         motions included a motion to vacate for lack of subject
         matter jurisdiction filed on October 7, 2022; a motion
         to vacate for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed
         on October 17, 2022; an amended motion to vacate for
         lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed on October 17,
         2022; and a motion to reverse and dismiss for lack of
         subject matter jurisdiction filed on December 16, 2022.7
         In those motions, the defendant argued that the state
           6
             ‘‘A nolle prosequi is a declaration of the prosecuting officer that he will
         not prosecute the suit further at that time. . . . As our Supreme Court has
         explained, [t]he effect of a nolle is to terminate the particular prosecution
         of the defendant without an acquittal and without placing him in jeopardy.’’
         (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Richard P.,
         179 Conn. App. 676, 682, 181 A.3d 107, cert. denied, 328 Conn. 924, 181 A.3d
         567 (2018).
           7
             On appeal, the defendant and the state both reference a motion to dismiss
         for lack of subject matter jurisdiction dated September 28, 2022, as one of
         the postsentencing motions the court denied that is the subject of this
         appeal. The trial court file does not show that any such motion was filed
         with or decided by the court. The transcript of the March 23, 2023 hearing
         indicates that, at the outset of the hearing, the court referenced five motions
         that were the subject of that hearing: (1) a motion for guilty plea and
         sentencing transcripts; (2) a motion to compel the defendant’s attorney to
         produce the defendant’s file; (3) a motion to vacate for lack of subject
         matter jurisdiction filed October 7, 2022; (4) an amended motion to vacate
         for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed October 17, 2022; and (5) a
         motion to reverse and dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed
         December 16, 2022. Even though the March 23, 2023 transcript shows three
         motions to vacate or dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction that
         were denied by the court, the defendant’s motion to vacate for lack of
         subject matter jurisdiction filed on October 17, 2022, includes a notation
         by the trial court indicating that it was part of the remote hearing and that
         the motion was denied. Accordingly, our decision in this appeal is limited
         to the four relevant motions to vacate or dismiss that were addressed and
         denied by the court. We note, nonetheless, that, even if our decision also
         concerned the September 28, 2022 motion, that would in no way impact or
         change our decision in this appeal.
0, 0                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     Page 5

       0 Conn. App. 827                                 ,0                         7
                                     State v. Berrios

       was precluded from prosecuting him again on the bur-
       glary in the first degree charge for a number of reasons,
       mainly, on double jeopardy grounds.8
          On March 23, 2023, the court, Stango, J., heard argu-
       ments on all four of the defendant’s motions. After the
       court addressed two unrelated motions, it turned to the
       motions to dismiss and/or vacate at issue in this appeal
       and asked the defendant if he wanted to vacate his
       guilty plea, to which the defendant initially replied that
       he did not and, instead, wanted to have the information
       reversed or dismissed as defective. The court then
       explained that ‘‘the first step in that would be having
       the guilty pleas vacated. You have [pleaded] guilty and
       were fully canvassed. So, you’re a convicted person on
       this case now, and you’re sentenced, and you’re here
       in front of me as a sentenced prisoner. . . . [S]o, you
       have decided to do some research on your own that
       the state was without subject matter jurisdiction to
       prosecute you, and, therefore, you should not have
       [pleaded] guilty?’’ The defendant replied that he ‘‘should
       not have [pleaded] guilty.’’
          Thereafter, the defendant reiterated the arguments
       contained in his motions. After hearing those argu-
       ments, the court denied the defendant’s postsentencing
       motions, stating: ‘‘You chose to have a trial. At that
       trial, you were acquitted of some counts, convicted of
       some counts, and [on] other [counts] the jury [was]
       unable to reach a verdict. At that point, any of those
       matters where the jury was unable to reach a verdict
       could be retried by the prosecutor. You can’t be retried
         8
           In his motions, the defendant made two primary arguments, namely,
       that (1) burglary in the first degree is a greater offense of assault in the
       third degree, and robbery in the third degree and assault in the third degree
       are greater and lesser included offenses, and (2) double jeopardy bars succes-
       sive prosecutions for greater and lesser included offenses. In his motions,
       the defendant sought to reverse, dismiss, and/or vacate his conviction of
       burglary in the first degree and the sentence imposed on July 13, 2022.
Page 6                        CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                     0, 0

         8                        ,0                          0 Conn. App. 827
                                       State v. Berrios

         on something you were convicted of. You can’t be
         retried on something that you were acquitted of. But
         the ones where the jury [was] unable to [reach] a ver-
         dict, the prosecutor brought another case against you.
         [On] [t]hose charges, you wound up pleading guilty
         and [were] thoroughly canvassed . . . .’’ This appeal
         followed.9
            On appeal, the defendant argues that (1) his convic-
         tion of assault in the third degree precluded a subse-
         quent prosecution for burglary in the first degree and
         (2) his acquittal on the charge of criminal mischief in
         the third degree precluded a subsequent prosecution
         for burglary in the first degree.10 The state counters
         that, because the defendant’s postsentencing motions
         were filed after the court already had sentenced the
         defendant, the court did not have jurisdiction to decide
         the defendant’s motions. We agree with the state.
           We first set forth the legal principles that are relevant
         to our resolution of this appeal. ‘‘It is axiomatic that
         jurisdiction involves the power in a court to hear and
         determine the cause of action presented to it and its
         source is the constitutional and statutory provisions by
             9
              The defendant has not appealed from his conviction under Docket No.
         XX-XXXXXXX-S of assault in the third degree. See footnote 5 of this opinion.
            10
               On appeal, the defendant also argues that the state could not prosecute
         him again for robbery in the third degree because that charge shares a
         common element with assault in the third degree, for which he previously
         was convicted. This claim also was raised in his motion to reverse and
         dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction filed on December 16, 2022.
         Although, for the reasons stated in this opinion, we do not reach the merits
         of the defendant’s claims, we do note that this claim concerns a crime of
         which the defendant was never convicted. See State v. Just, 185 Conn. 339,
         356, 441 A.2d 98 (1981) (defendant could not make argument that court
         erroneously instructed jury concerning unlawful restraint in first degree as
         lesser offense of kidnapping in first degree because he was not convicted
         of unlawful restraint in first degree); State v. David O., 104 Conn. App. 722,
         732, 937 A.2d 56 (2007) (defendant could not have been prejudiced by
         prosecutor’s remarks regarding crimes of which defendant was not con-
         victed), cert. denied, 285 Conn. 915, 943 A.2d 473 (2008).
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 7

       0 Conn. App. 827                         ,0             9
                             State v. Berrios

       which it is created. . . . Article fifth, § 1 of the Con-
       necticut constitution proclaims that [t]he powers and
       jurisdiction of the courts shall be defined by law, and
       General Statutes § 51-164s provides that [t]he superior
       court shall be the sole court of original jurisdiction for
       all causes of action, except such actions over which
       the courts of probate have original jurisdiction, as pro-
       vided by statute. . . . The Superior Court is a constitu-
       tional court of general jurisdiction. . . . In the absence
       of statutory or constitutional provisions, the limits of
       its jurisdiction are delineated by the common law. . . .
       It is well established that under the common law a trial
       court has the discretionary power to modify or vacate
       a criminal judgment before the sentence has been exe-
       cuted.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; inter-
       nal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reid, 277 Conn.
       764, 774, 894 A.2d 963 (2006); see also State v. McCoy,
       331 Conn. 561, 585, 206 A.3d 725 (2019) (‘‘a trial court
       loses jurisdiction upon the execution of the defendant’s
       sentence, unless it is expressly authorized to act’’).
           Our Supreme Court consistently has held that, in
       criminal cases, ‘‘the imposition of sentence is the judg-
       ment of the court. . . . When the sentence is put into
       effect and the prisoner is taken in execution, custody
       is transferred from the court to the custodian of the
       penal institution. At this point jurisdiction of the court
       over the prisoner terminates.’’ (Internal quotation
       marks omitted.) State v. Reid, supra, 277 Conn. 775;
       see also State v. Butler, 348 Conn. 51, 69, 300 A.3d 1145
       (2023) (recognizing existing common-law rule that ‘‘a
       trial court has the discretionary power to modify or
       vacate a criminal judgment before the sentence has
       been executed’’ (internal quotation marks omitted));
       State v. Evans, 329 Conn. 770, 778, 189 A.3d 1184 (2018)
       (‘‘[A] trial court has the discretionary power to modify
       or vacate a criminal judgment before the sentence has
       been executed. . . . This is so because the court loses
Page 8                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        0, 0

         10                  ,0                      0 Conn. App. 827
                                  State v. Berrios

         jurisdiction over the case when the defendant is com-
         mitted to the custody of the [C]ommissioner of [C]orrec-
         tion and begins serving the sentence.’’ (Emphasis
         added; internal quotation marks omitted.)), cert.
         denied,        U.S.     , 139 S. Ct. 1304, 203 L. Ed. 2d 425
         (2019); State v. Parker, 295 Conn. 825, 834, 992 A.2d
         1103 (2010) (‘‘[a] generally accepted rule of the common
         law is that a sentence cannot be modified by the trial
         court . . . if the sentence was valid and execution of
         it has commenced’’ (internal quotation marks omitted));
         State v. Das, 291 Conn. 356, 370, 968 A.2d 367 (2009)
         (trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider postsentenc-
         ing motion to withdraw plea); State v. Lawrence, 281
         Conn. 147, 154, 913 A.2d 428 (2007) (‘‘[w]ithout a legisla-
         tive or constitutional grant of continuing jurisdiction
         . . . the trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify its judg-
         ment’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).
            Accordingly, because the defendant already had been
         sentenced, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to
         decide his postsentencing motions, unless there exists
         a legislative or constitutional grant of continuing juris-
         diction that applies in this case. See State v. Luzietti,
         230 Conn. 427, 431, 646 A.2d 85 (1994) (‘‘once judgment
         has been rendered and the defendant has begun serving
         the sentence imposed, the trial court lacks jurisdiction
         to modify its judgment in the absence of a legislative
         or constitutional grant of continuing jurisdiction’’
         (emphasis added)). In that vein, our Supreme Court has
         ‘‘note[d] that there are a limited number of circum-
         stances in which the legislature expressly has conferred
         on the trial courts ‘continuing jurisdiction to act on
         their judgments after the commencement of sentence
         . . . . See, e.g., General Statutes §§ 53a-29 through 53a-
         34 (permitting the trial court to modify terms of proba-
         tion after sentence is imposed); General Statutes § 52-
         270 (granting jurisdiction to trial court to hear a petition
         for a new trial after execution of original sentence has
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      Page 9

       0 Conn. App. 827                         ,0            11
                             State v. Berrios

       commenced) . . . .’ ’’ State v. Reid, supra, 277 Conn.
       775 n.13; see also State v. Das, supra, 291 Conn. 362
       (court may correct illegal sentence or sentence imposed
       in illegal manner pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22).
          In the present case, the defendant has not claimed
       that any such exception applies that would have
       allowed the trial court to retain jurisdiction over his
       postsentencing motions, and his motions cannot be con-
       strued as challenging his sentence. Furthermore, our
       review of the substance of the motions leads us to
       conclude that they do not fall within any of these catego-
       ries as to which the legislature has conferred continuing
       jurisdiction on the trial court to act on a judgment
       following the imposition of sentence. We, thus, need
       not examine the applicability of these exceptions to the
       defendant’s postsentencing motions.
          In its appellate brief, the state argues that, despite
       the various titles of the defendant’s motions, they all
       were, in substance, motions to withdraw his plea of
       guilty to the burglary charge. In light of the colloquy at
       the March 23, 2023 hearing and the arguments raised
       in the motions, we agree with the state and treat the
       motions as such. See Torres v. Carrese, 149 Conn. App.
       596, 613, 90 A.3d 256 (‘‘[c]ourts analyze pleadings for
       what they are, rather than for what their titles state
       they are’’), cert. denied, 312 Conn. 912, 93 A.3d 595
       (2014). Pursuant to Practice Book § 39-26, ‘‘[a] defen-
       dant may withdraw his or her plea of guilty or nolo
       contendere as a matter of right until the plea has been
       accepted. . . . A defendant may not withdraw his or
       her plea after the conclusion of the proceeding at which
       the sentence was imposed.’’ (Emphasis added.) In State
       v. Das, supra, 291 Conn. 356, the defendant appealed
       from the trial court’s dismissal of his motion to vacate
       the judgment of conviction against him and to withdraw
       his plea of nolo contendere. Id., 358. Our Supreme Court
       affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of his motion on the
Page 10                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      0, 0

          12                         ,0                         0 Conn. App. 827
                                          State v. Berrios

          ground that, because the defendant’s sentence already
          had begun, the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to
          consider a postsentencing request to withdraw a plea.11
          See id., 361–62. It therefore follows that, because the
          defendant in the present case already had begun serving
          his sentence, the trial court did not have jurisdiction
          to consider his postsentencing motions seeking, in
          effect, a withdrawal of his guilty plea. It is also signifi-
          cant that the previously mentioned limited circum-
          stances in which the legislature expressly has conferred
          continuing jurisdiction on the trial courts are not ‘‘rele-
          vant . . . to a trial court’s jurisdiction to consider a
          defendant’s postsentencing request to withdraw his
          plea.’’ Id., 363; see id., 362 (‘‘[a]lthough there are several
          exceptions to th[e] rule [that a defendant may not with-
          draw his plea after the conclusion of the proceeding at
          which the sentence was imposed] that afford the trial
          court jurisdiction over a defendant’s challenge to his
          sentence, we find it instructive that none of these excep-
          tions extends the trial court’s jurisdiction to consider
          a postsentencing attack on the plea itself’’ (emphasis
          in original)).
             In sum, in the present case, the defendant pleaded
          guilty, and the court sentenced him on July 13, 2022.
          The defendant did not file his first postsentencing
          motion until nearly three months after the sentence had
          been imposed, at which point he already had started
          serving his sentence. Therefore, on March 23, 2023,
          when the court heard argument on and denied the post-
          sentencing motions, the court no longer had jurisdiction
          to rule on the motions. See, e.g., State v. Luzietti, supra,
          230 Conn. 432 (‘‘court loses jurisdiction over the case’’
          once defendant has begun serving his sentence). For
            11
              Furthermore, our Supreme Court stated that there is no ‘‘constitutional
          violation exception to the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction over a defendant’s
          motion to withdraw his plea after the sentence has been executed . . . .’’
          State v. Das, supra, 291 Conn. 368.
0, 0                         CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 11

       0 Conn. App. 827                                  ,0                        13
                                      State v. Berrios

       that reason, the court should have dismissed, rather
       than denied, the defendant’s postsentencing motions.12
          The form of the judgment is improper, the judgment
       is reversed and the case is remanded with direction to
       render judgment dismissing the defendant’s postsen-
       tencing motions.
          In this opinion the other judges concurred.

         12
           In light of our determination that the trial court did not have jurisdiction
       over the defendant’s postsentencing motions, we do not reach the merits
       of his double jeopardy claims on appeal, including the question of whether
       he waived such a claim by pleading guilty. See, e.g., State v. Adams, 186
       Conn. App. 84, 88, 198 A.3d 691 (2018) (‘‘defendant’s valid guilty plea . . .
       constitutes a waiver of his double jeopardy claim’’ (internal quotation
       marks omitted)).