In Re Chandra Bozelko

BACKGROUND: Connecticut General Statute § 53a-39 allows one party to a criminal action, the state, to confer subject matter jurisdiction over motions to modify sentences of incarceration that are three years or longer. The statute requires any application to modify a sentence that is longer than three years of incarceration to be approved, or "concurred with," by the state's attorney in order to reach a judge. If the state's attorney does not concur with the application to modify a sentence of more than three years incarceration, then the application is summarily denied. Only the state's attorney's concurrence with the application confers subject matter jurisdiction over the application; the court cannot adjudicate the application over the state's attorney's disagreement. In dismissing Petitioner's request for certification to review the constitutionality of C.G.S. § 53a-39, the Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut upheld the statute despite its obvious conflict with established, relevant precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States on the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. QUESTIONS: 1. Can one party in a case decide subject matter jurisdiction in lieu of the judge?