In State v. Francis, 69 Conn. App. 378, 793 A.2d 1224, cert. denied, 260 Conn. 935, 802 A.2d 88, 123 S. Ct. 630, 154 L. Ed. 2d 536 (2002), the panel held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the defendant's claim under Practice Book 43-22 where the motion to correct the illegal sentence did not attack the validity of the sentence as exceeding the maximum statutory limits, did not violate a mandatory minimum sentence, did not violate double jeopardy rights and was neither ambiguous nor internally contradictory. Id., at 384.