|
November 18, 2008
This case arises out of the discovery of a large reptile in the defendant's home by the Greenwich police during a warrantless search of the premises. The defendant, Gary Ryder, was convicted of illegal possession of a reptile in violation of General Statutes § 26-55 after the trial court denied his motion to dismiss and his motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the warrantless search of his home. He appeals from the judgment of conviction, claiming that the court improperly...
|
|
November 18, 2008
The petitioner, Emisael Vasquez, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that he was not denied the effective assistance of trial counsel.1 We affirm the judgment of the habeas court... The petitioner was convicted of assault in the first degree and violation of probation for stabbing Bobby Johnson during a dice game on July 17, 1999. Johnson claimed that the petitioner...
|
|
November 18, 2008
It is well established that statutory and common-law principles substantially limit the scope of judicial review of an unrestricted submission of an unresolved question of fact or law to an arbitral panel. General Statutes § 52-418; State v. New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199, AFL-CIO, 265 Conn. 771, 777—78, 830 A.2d 729 (2003). Accordingly, in labor disputes, judicial review of the propriety of an arbitral award is limited to a determination of whether the...
|
|
November 18, 2008
This appeal concerns the application of the automatic approval doctrine. The plaintiff, 109 North, LLC, appeals from the summary judgment on its mandamus action rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant, the planning commission of the town of New Milford. The plaintiff's principal claim is that the court improperly concluded that the defendant acted on the plaintiff's subdivision application within the time limits prescribed by General Statutes §§ 8-26 and 8-26d. We agree...
|
|
November 18, 2008
The plaintiff, John Alan Sakon, appeals from the judgments of the trial court denying two tax appeals brought pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-117a and 12-119. The defendant in this matter is the town of Glastonbury. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly (1) concluded that he was not aggrieved, (2) applied the doctrine of assemblage to determine the value of properties appearing separately on the grand list, (3) determined that the highest and best use of his...
|
|
November 18, 2008
The defendant, Cletus Aziegbemi, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction of attempt to commit risk of injury to a child under the "situation" prong of § 53-21 (a) (1), and (2) § 53-21 (a) (1) is unconstitutionally vague as...
|
|
November 18, 2008
The plaintiff, Zbigniew S. Rozbicki, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his appeal from the reprimand issued to him by the defendant, the statewide grievance committee (committee). The committee affirmed the decision of its reviewing committee, reprimanding the plaintiff for a violation of rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (2005).1 On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that...
|
|
November 18, 2008
A jury found the defendant, Karriem Shawn Holness, guilty of two counts of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a), and one count of carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35.1 The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict,2 and the defendant appealed.3 On appeal, the defendant claims that his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution,4 which...
|
|
November 18, 2008
The plaintiff, Nicole J. Kenny, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing her postjudgment motion for contempt. The issue presented in this case is whether the court improperly concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant, David E. Banks, without first hearing any testimony or making any factual findings in support of its conclusion.1 We reverse the judgment of the trial court... The record reveals the following relevant factual allegations and procedural...
|
|
November 18, 2008
The defendant, Tyrone King, appeals1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a),2 and sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b).3 The defendant raises four claims on appeal: (1) the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the defendant could be...
|
|
November 11, 2008
The petitioner, Christopher Coleman, appeals from the dismissal of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, he claims that the habeas court abused its discretion by refusing to rule on his petition for certification to appeal. The petitioner further claims that the claims raised in his habeas corpus petition, if proven, would establish a due process violation. The court, in dismissing the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, stated that the petition did not present a claim on which...
|
|
November 11, 2008
The plaintiff, Bridgeport Harbour Place I, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered following the granting of the motions to strike the amended complaint filed by the defendants Joseph P. Ganim; the city of Bridgeport; Alfred Lenoci, Sr.; Alfred Lenoci, Jr.; United Properties, Ltd.; 815 Lafayette Centre, LLC; United Investments, LLC; United Environmental Redevelopment, LLC; Crescent Avenue Development Company, LLC; Charles J. Willinger, Jr.; Willinger, Willinger & Bucci, P.C.;...
|
|
November 11, 2008
The defendant, Rajpaul Jagat, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a7-3a (a) (2). The defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to prove that (1) he possessed the requisite intent for conviction and (2) he subjected the victim1 to sexual contact. We affirm the judgment of the trial court... The court reasonably could have found the following facts. On...
|
|
November 11, 2008
The respondent mother is appealing from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights1 with respect to her minor child, rendered after a petition was brought by the petitioner, the commissioner of children and families, pursuant to General Statutes § 17a-112. The respondent claims that the court (1) violated her due process rights under the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution2 by conducting the termination of parental rights trial in her absence and (2)...
|
|
November 11, 2008
A jury found the defendant, Matthew Steven Johnson, guilty of three counts of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a.1 The trial court rendered judgments in accordance with the jury verdicts,2 and the defendant appealed to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) granted the state's motion to consolidate for trial the three counts of murder upon concluding that the evidence of each murder...
|
|
November 11, 2008
This amended appeal and cross appeal1 require us to consider, inter alia, under what circumstances, in a case in which it already has been determined that an employee is entitled to unpaid over-time pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. (act), the overtime premium rate may be calculated based on the fluctuating workweek method, as set forth in § 778.114 of title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations.2 The defendants, Norwich Taxi, LLC (Norwich Taxi), Susan...
|
|
November 11, 2008
The defendant, Channy Nee Khuth, appeals from the judgment of conviction of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (4), conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-59 (a) (4) and two counts of assault in the first degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-59 (a) (4).1 The defendant was sentenced to a total effective term of forty years imprisonment,...
|
|
November 11, 2008
This is an appeal from the judgment of the habeas court denying a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in which the petitioner, Edward D. Wright, claimed that his conviction of attempt to commit murder and assault in the first degree was obtained as a result of the ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, the petitioner claims (1) that the court abused its discretion in denying his petition for certification to appeal and (2) that the court improperly found that the ineffective assistance...
|
|
November 11, 2008
The petitioner, Robert Watson, appeals from the judgment of the habeas court denying his sixth amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) identifications of the petitioner introduced at his criminal trial did not deprive him of his right to due process of law and (2) the alleged failures of his trial and appellate counsel did not deprive him of his right to effective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of...
|
|
November 8, 2008
The defendant, Tyrone King, appeals1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sale of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a),2 and sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b).3 The defendant raises four claims on appeal: (1) the trial court improperly failed to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment; (2) the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the defendant could be...
|