The mission of the Connecticut Judicial Branch is to serve the interests of justice and the public by resolving matters brought before it in a fair, timely, efficient and open manner.

Criminal Law Supreme and Appellate Court Opinions

by Roy, Christopher

 

SC19688 - State v. Lee ("The sole issue in this certified appeal is whether, in light of this court’s decision in State v. Wright, 320 Conn. 781, 135 A.3d 1 (2016), the proper remedy for the defendant’s conviction of two counts of conspiracy arising from the same unlawful agreement is vacatur. The defendant, David E. Lee, was convicted of, inter alia, conspiracy to make a false statement in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-157b (a) and 53a-48 (a), and conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-155 (a) (2) and 53a-48 (a), arising from a single unlawful agreement. The Appellate Court held that the defendant’s conviction of both conspiracy counts on the basis of a single unlawful agreement violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy and, relying on this court’s decision in State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 724–25, 584 A.2d 425 (1990), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1254, 111 S. Ct. 2898, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1062 (1991), remanded the case to the trial court with direction to merge the conspiracy to make a false statement in the second degree conviction into the conspiracy to fabricate physical evidence conviction, to vacate the sentence on the conviction of conspiracy to make a false statement in the second degree, and to resentence the defendant. State v. Lee, 138 Conn. App. 420, 450, 454, 52 A.3d 736 (2012). While the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal was pending before this court, we held in State v. Wright, supra, 828–30, that the proper remedy when a defendant is convicted of two counts of conspiracy arising from the same unlawful agreement in violation of double jeopardy is vacatur rather than merger. Both the defendant and the state now claim that pursuant to Wright, the defendant is entitled to have his conspiracy to make a false statement in the second degree conviction vacated. We agree.")

AC37724 - State v. Navarro ("The defendant, Francisco Navarro, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-101 (a) (3), threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, and interfering with a police officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a. The defendant’s identical twin brother, Jose Navarro (Jose), was charged with, and convicted of, the same offenses as the defendant and, in addition, with assault on a police officer, after the joint trial at which they were jointly represented by defense counsel. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court violated his sixth amendment right to conflict free representation by conducting an inadequate inquiry into whether a conflict of interest had arisen in the joint representation and (2) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by representing him during plea negotiations, trial, and sentencing while burdened by an actual conflict of interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37725 - State v. Navarro ("The defendant, Jose Navarro, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of attempt to commit burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-101 (a) (3), threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-62, interfering with a police officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a, and assault on a police officer in violation of General Statutes § 167c (a) (5). The defendant’s identical twin brother, Francisco Navarro (Francisco), was charged with, and convicted of, the same offenses as the defendant, with the exception of the assault on a police officer offense, after the joint trial at which they were jointly represented by defense counsel. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court violated his sixth amendment right to conflict free representation by denying counsel’s request to appoint a special public defender to represent him and (2) counsel rendered ineffective assistance by representing him at trial and sentencing while burdened by an actual conflict of interest. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC39377 - State v. Crenshaw ("The defendant, Darryl Crenshaw, appeals from the judgment of the trial court resentencing him to a total effective sentence of seventy-eight years imprisonment, on remand from the judgment of the Supreme Court, which had reversed, in part, his conviction of kidnapping in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-94 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly resentenced him under the aggregate package theory, violating his right to due process of law. Specifically, the defendant argues that because the trial court did not explicitly state on the record at the original sentencing that it was sentencing the defendant under the aggregate package theory, or words to that effect, it violated the defendant’s right to due process for the court to adopt the aggregate package theory during resentencing. We disagree, and, therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37810 - State v. Caballero ("The defendant, Elvin R. Caballero, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-124, one count of larceny in the third degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-124, and nine counts of forgery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-138 (a) (1). The defendant contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to grant his motion for a bill of particulars, which left him without adequate notice that he was facing conviction under subdivision (3) of § 53a-124 (a) as to the counts of conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree and larceny in the third degree as an accessory, and thereby deprived him of his constitutional rights. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")