Plain Error Doctrine In Connecticut
A defendant claimed that he was improperly sentenced.
He argues that the court, when imposing the sentence, impermissibly penalized him for having exercised his right to a jury trial, and improperly considered other charges pending against the defendant in another court and imposed sex offender registration as a condition of probation.
As all of these claims are unpreserved, we decline to review them.
The defendant asserts that when the state addressed the court at the sentencing proceeding, it remarked on the fact that a previous judge had offered the defendant a plea bargain on the charge of sexual assault in the second degree, which entailed a sentence of ten years incarceration, suspended after three years, with ten years of probation.
After pointing out that the defendant had elected a jury trial and had been convicted of serious charges, the state urged the court to impose a more serious sentence.
According to the defendant, the court's eventual sentence, which was less than what the state suggested, but more than the plea bargain, is an indication that the defendant was improperly punished for exercising his constitutional right to a jury trial.
"Ordinarily, we will not review a claim that was not distinctly raised before the trial court. Practice Book 4185 [now 60-5]; State v. Reddick, 33 Conn. App. 311, 331, 635 A.2d 848 (1993), cert. denied, 228 Conn. 924, 638 A.2d 38 (1994)." State v. Crump, 43 Conn. App. 252, 261, 683 A.2d 402, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 941, 684 A.2d 712 (1996).
The defendant, in his reply brief, now seeks review under the plain error doctrine.
It is well established that "plain error 'review is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.' . . . State v. Wright, 207 Conn. 276, 288-89, 542 A.2d 299 (1988); State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463, 469, 522 A.2d 249 (1987)." State v. Boles, 223 Conn. 535, 551, 613 A.2d 770 (1992); State v. Crump, supra, 43 Conn. App. 261. In this case, there was no court action resulting in any manifest injustice.
We therefore decline review on this basis.