AC45999 - State v. Devin M. (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court (1) violated his right to due process under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution, when it denied his pretrial motion to dismiss the charges against him, in which he alleged that the police improperly failed to preserve and to collect certain evidence relating to clothing recovered from the laundry hamper (hamper) in the victim’s bedroom, and (2) abused its discretion by failing to conduct additional inquiry into an allegation of juror misconduct. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

AC46751, AC46758 - State v. Lee and State v. Labrec (“These two appeals, although not consolidated, involve an identical issue, namely, whether the unreasonable delay in the execution of a rearrest warrant for failure to appear, which led to the dismissal of the failure to appear charge on statute of limitations grounds, also warranted, on statute of limitations grounds, the dismissal of the otherwise timely filed underlying charges. In Docket No. AC 46751, the state appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing the charges brought against the defendant Timothy A. Lee. In Docket No. AC 46758, the state appeals from the judgment of the court dismissing the charges brought against the defendant Clifton Labrec. In both appeals, the state asserts that, in connection with dismissing the defendants’ respective failure to appear charges on statute of limitations grounds, which the state does not challenge, the court improperly applied statute of limitations principles in dismissing the underlying timely filed charges brought against each defendant We agree with the state and, accordingly, reverse the judgments of the trial court insofar as the court dismissed the defendants’ respective underlying charges.”)

AC45351 - State v. Abramovich (“On appeal, the defendant asks this court to allow him to withdraw his guilty pleas on the grounds that (1) he was not competent to plead guilty; (2) his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate his competence and to request a competency evaluation pursuant to General Statutes § 54-56d; (3) he was under duress at the time of his pleas; (4) the court breached the plea agreement; (5) the court failed to substantially comply with Practice Book § 39-19 when it accepted the pleas; (6) the court lacked a factual basis for the pleas; and (7) the court relied on materially false information at sentencing. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.”)

AC46567 - State v. Godbout (“On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) General Statutes § 54-94a is unconstitutional; (2) Practice Book § 39-18 is unconstitutional; (3) the charges against him lacked probable cause; (4) the court erred in not complying with the requirements of Practice Book § 39-18; (5) the court violated his due process rights by failing to hold a hearing on his postjudgment motions; (6) the judges who presided over his case acted without authority; and (7) the court exceeded its authority by imposing terms to his conditional discharge. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)