SC20728 - State v. Correa ("This appeal requires us to examine, among other things, the level of particularity required for a warrant to search and seize a cell phone's data. The defendant, Sergio J. Correa, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of murder with special circumstances, two counts of arson in the second degree, two counts of robbery in the first degree, and one count of home invasion. He claims that his rights under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution were violated when the police (1) seized his cell phone without a warrant, and (2) obtained a warrant to search and seize "all data" on the cell phone. Assuming the seizure of the defendant's cell phone was constitutional, we conclude that the warrant violated the fourth amendment because it was insufficiently particular. Accordingly, the evidence obtained from the defendant's cell phone should have been suppressed. However, we affirm the trial court's judgment of conviction because we conclude that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.")

AC47370 - State v. Wright ("The defendant, Randy A. Wright, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), one count of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of sexual assault in the second degree and one of his convictions of risk of injury to a child, (2) the trial court improperly denied his midtrial request for a lengthy continuance in order to seek new counsel or prepare to represent himself, (3) the trial court erred in failing to advise him of the consequences of failing to appear and in trying and sentencing him in absentia after he absconded during his trial, (4) the trial court improperly denied the request by the defendant's counsel, Vincent Fazzone, for a mistrial when the defendant failed to appear on the second day of evidence, (5) the trial court improperly failed to sua sponte declare a mistrial and remove Fazzone as defense counsel, and (6) the trial court improperly prevented Fazzone from cross-examining the victim about a prior accusation of sexual misconduct that she allegedly had made. We dismiss the appeal as to the defendant's sixth claim and otherwise affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC46683 - State v. Trice ("The defendant, Shife Trice, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-135 (a) (1) (B). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the court improperly failed to conduct, sua sponte, an independent inquiry into his competence, (2) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to support his conviction, (3) the court violated his constitutional right to self-representation, and (4) the court abused its discretion by admitting a certain hearsay statement into evidence. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")