State of Connecticut v. Lawrence Buell

State of Connecticut v. Lawrence Buell (8552) Spallone, Daly and Norcott, Js. Argued June 14 decision released June 27, 1990 D. Kirt Westfall, with whom, on the brief, were JohnR. Williams, Sue L. Wise, and David B. Bach-man, for the appellant (defendant) Susan C. Marks, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Michael Dearington, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. The defendant in this appeal complains that the trial court lacked the authority to impose a sentence for the original offense that ran consecutive to the sentence for the subsequent offense and, that in doing so, the trial court violated his federal and state constitutional rights against double jeopardy. In essence, the defendant claims that the trial court could not impose a sentence for a probation violation consecutive to a sentence he was then serving. This claim is without merit. This court has held to the contrary. See, e.g., State v. Ryerson, 20 Conn. App. 572, 576, 570 A.2d 709 (1990); State v. Gaskin, 7 Conn. App. 131, 135, 508 A.2d 40 (1986). The judgment is affirmed. The record reveals that the defendant had fled the jurisdiction at the time of sentencing and was sentenced in absentia.