AC37216 - Olson v. Mohammadu ("The defendant, Fusaini Mohammadu, appeals from the ruling of the trial court, Ficeto, J., denying his postjudgment motion for modification of alimony and child support orders, rendered on remand following the decision of our Supreme Court in Olson v. Mohammadu, 310 Conn. 665, 81 A.3d 215 (2013). Additionally, in his amended appeal, the defendant challenges a subsequent ruling of the trial court, Albis, J., that ordered him to pay the plaintiff, Marianne Olson, $6002 in a previously found arrearage pursuant to an order he claimed had been suspended, and the court’s ruling that granted the plaintiff’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees to defend the present appeal. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38010 - Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the habeas court improperly rejected his claims that (1) he received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney’s failure to advise him properly of the immigration consequences of his guilty plea in accordance with Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 176 L. Ed. 2d 284 (2010), and (2) his guilty plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court failed to ensure that he fully understood the precise immigration consequences of his plea. We conclude that the habeas court properly rejected the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on the ground that he failed to demonstrate prejudice, as required under the test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984). Additionally, the petitioner’s second claim fails as a matter of law because immigration and naturalization consequences of a plea, although often significant, are not of a constitutional magnitude for purposes of evaluating whether a plea is knowing and voluntary. See State v. Malcolm, 257 Conn. 653, 663 n.12, 778 A.2d 134 (2001). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court.")

• Posted in:
• Habeas Corpus Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38367 - State v. Andriulaitis (Disorderly conduct; "In State v. Indrisano, 228 Conn. 795, 640 A.2d 986 (1994), our Supreme Court applied an interpretive gloss to certain provisions of the disorderly conduct statute, General Statutes § 53a-182, in order to preserve their constitutionality. At issue in this appeal is the gloss providing that the phrase "offensive or disorderly conduct" in § 53a-182 (a) (2) means "conduct that is grossly offensive, under contemporary community standards, to a person who actually overhears it or sees it." Id., 818. The defendant, William Andriulaitis, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of disorderly conduct in violation of § 53a-182 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he engaged in conduct that was "offensive or disorderly" under the standard set forth in Indrisano, and that the court improperly failed to consider the Indrisano gloss in its deliberations because it did not reference the gloss when explaining the evidentiary and factual bases for its guilty verdict.The court, however, is presumed to have applied the proper legal standard in arriving at its legal conclusions, and the defendant has not identified any basis in the record to rebut that presumption. In any case, the defendant's argument that his conviction should be reversed simply because the court did not reference the Indrisano gloss when announcing its verdict misapprehends this court's standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence claims. Our review, by long-standing precedent, focuses on whether, in light of the entire evidentiary record together with all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, a rational fact finder could find that the state proved all of the necessary elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. We conclude that the evidence adduced at trial meets this standard and, accordingly, affirm the defendant's conviction.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

Curious about the regulatory process in Connecticut? The E-Regulations System, maintained by the Secretary of State's office, offers an overview of Regulation-Making in Connecticut:

Regulations are rules adopted by Connecticut state agencies and some boards and commissions. Regulations are adopted in Connecticut pursuant to the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act Chapter 54 of the General Statutes and the rules of the Legislative Regulation Review Committee (LRRC). Generally, a regulation must (1) be properly noticed, (2) have a public comment period, (3) be approved by the Attorney General as to legal sufficiency, (4) be approved by the LRRC, and (5) be filed in the Secretary of the State's office.
...
Agencies may only adopt regulations that are authorized by Connecticut statute. Some agencies have very broad authority to adopt regulations, while other agencies have more limited authority that is often limited to a particular topic. With some exceptions, an agency’s regulation-making authority generally falls into two categories, mandatory and permissive. Mandatory regulations are those that an agency is required to write pursuant to a public act. Many agencies also have permissive regulatory authority, which means they have authority to write regulations on a particular topic, but are not required to do so.

There is also a Glossary of Terms and Acronyms and a helpful guide for users searching for regulations: How to Use this Site.

• Posted in:
• Agency Rules and Regulations,
• Did You Know?,
• FYI,
• Legal Research

AC39013 - In re Jacquelyn W. (Child neglect; "The respondent mother, Wendy F., appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the petitioner, the Commissioner of Children and Families, granting a motion to transfer permanent legal guardianship of the respondent's minor daughter, Jacquelyn W., to Jacquelyn's aunt, Shirley R. The respondent claims that the court improperly granted the petitioner's motion for permanent transfer of guardianship because the court failed (1) to canvass her prior to the hearing in accordance with In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015); and (2) to advise her that the court could draw an adverse inference from her failure to testify. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Office of Legislative Research has issued the following new reports:

• Change in Motor Vehicle Registration Renewal Policy - 2016-R-0244
• Alleged Child Abuse or Neglect By School Employees - 2016-R-0219
• Automatic Transfer of Juveniles from Juvenile to Criminal Court - 2016-R-0214
• Voisine v. United States - 2016-R-0238
• Can Medical Marijuana Card Holders Buy Firearms? - 2016-R-0239
• Nursing Home Ownership Changes - 2016-R-0159
• Elderly Rental Rebate Program - 2016-R-0247
• Vocational Rehabilitation - 2016-R-0251

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC39142 - In re Baciany R. (Termination of parental rights; "The respondent father, Baciany R., appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights as to his son, Baciany R. (child). On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that termination of his parental rights was in the best interest of the child. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Juvenile Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC19769 - Price v. Independent Party of CT—State Central (This case involves a dispute between two factions of this state's Independent Party. The question before the court is whether it has original jurisdiction, pursuant to General Statutes § 9-323, to remedy certain alleged violations of party procedure and election law by caucus officials of one of those factions, the named defendant, the Independent Party of CT—State Central, pertaining to its nomination of the defendant Daniel Carter for the United States Senate. After an expedited hearing on September 29, 2016, the court concluded that the plaintiffs, John R. Price, the nominee for the United States Senate of the other faction, the Independent Party of Connecticut, and Michael Telesca, an elector and registered member of the Independent Party of Connecticut, had failed to establish that the court had jurisdiction to entertain their claims under § 9-323. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Independent Party of CT—State Central and Carter. This written opinion followed.)

• Posted in:
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC38763 - State v. Campbell (Attempt to commit murder; risk of injury to child; "The defendant, Richard Campbell, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a court trial, of attempt to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-54a (a), and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that the court's rejection of the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect, otherwise known as the insanity defense, was not reasonably supported by the evidence. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC38643 - State v. Simpson (Murder; accessorial liability; "Following the trial court's acceptance of his guilty plea under the Alford doctrine, the defendant, Earl Simpson, was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-54a (a) and 53a-8. The defendant now appeals from the judgment, claiming that: (1) on the basis of facts and circumstances that were apparent to the court at the time of the plea and which undermined a finding that the defendant understood the nature of the charge at issue, the court abused its discretion by denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing and, in the alternative, abused its discretion by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the motion; (2) the court violated the defendant's right to counsel by failing to address the grievances that the defendant raised to the court concerning his attorney and, in the alternative, abused its discretion by failing to inquire with respect to such complaints; and (3) the court abused its discretion by accepting the plea and that its acceptance of the plea violated the defendant's right to due process. We agree with the defendant that the court improperly failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing with respect to his motion to withdraw his plea and failed to undertake a necessary inquiry with respect to his complaints concerning his attorney. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings with respect to those issues.")

AC37921 - State v. Baltas (Assault in second degree; possession of dangerous instrument in correctional institution; "The defendant, Joe Baltas, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-60 (a) (2) and one count of possession of a dangerous instrument in a correctional institution in violation of General Statutes § 53a-174a. The defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress an incriminating statement he made to a correction officer because he allegedly was subjected to a custodial interrogation without the benefit of having been advised of his constitutional rights pursuant to Miranda. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

Animal cruelty stories appear in the media with some frequency. The Office of Legislative Research (OLR) has published an informative report titled Court Procedures for Animal Cruelty Cases, which discusses court procedures in animal cruelty cases, references statutory law regarding animal cruelty, and offers some statistics.

Also note the law libraries' CT Law About - Dogs page.

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• FYI,
• Legal Research

With the November election fast approaching, the Connecticut Secretary of State has posted a FAQ about Connecticut's Elections and Security. The FAQ addresses common voter concerns about the security of voter registrations and ballots, and includes hotline information to report Election Day problems.

The SOTS also has a Voter Information page, where they link to numerous fact sheets and voter resources. Connecticut residents can check their voter registration status, get information about voter registration procedure and eligibility, and register to vote online.

And if you're looking for more information about Connecticut election law, check out our Law about Election Law page.

• Posted in:
• Did You Know?,
• FAQ,
• FYI

The Judicial Branch publishes a number of pamphlets describing the court's Special Sessions and Diversionary Programs:

Hartford Community Court Session
Domestic Violence Dockets
Drug Intervention Programs
Accelerated Rehabilitation
Supervised Diversionary Program
Alcohol Education Program
Drug Education and Community Service Program
Family Violence Education Program
Community Service Labor Program
School Violence Prevention Program
Suspended Prosecution for Illegal Sale, Delivery, or Transfer of Pistols or Revolvers
Treatment of Defendants who are Dependent on Drugs or Alcohol Instead of Prosecuting Them
Treatment of Convicted Defendants who are Dependent on Drugs or Alcohol Instead of Sending Them to Jail

See also the Law Libraries' Connecticut Law About Criminal Penalties webpage, and the Table on Fines and Penalties linked to therein.

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Did You Know?,
• FAQ,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

SC19337 - State v. Bellamy (Murder; assault first degree; criminal possession of pistol; carrying pistol without permit; certification from Appellate Court; "The defendant, Brandon Montrell Bellamy, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), and one count each of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (5), criminal possession of a pistol in violation of General Statutes § 53a-217c (a), and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35. The defendant claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that he waived his unpreserved jury instruction claim under the rule established in State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011). The defendant further contends that the rule in Kitchens should be overturned because it is confusing, unworkable, interferes with the trial court's discretion to review unpreserved claims and does not serve the interests of justice. We conclude, following a careful review of the record, that the Appellate Court correctly determined that the defendant waived his unpreserved jury instruction claim. We also conclude that the rule in Kitchens should not be overturned. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")

• SC19337 Concurrence - State v. Bellamy
• SC19337 Concurrence - State v. Bellamy

SC19383 - State v. Herring (Conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of cannabis-type substance; possession of one kilogram or more of cannabis-type substance with intent to sell as accessory; waiver of instructional error claim; certification from Appellate Court; "The defendant, Terry P. Herring, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of a cannabis-type substance in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b) and 53a-48, and possession of one kilogram or more of a cannabis-type substance with intent to sell as an accessory in violation of § 21a-278 (b) and General Statutes § 53a-8. State v. Herring, 151 Conn. App. 154, 155, 173, 94 A.3d 688 (2014). The Appellate Court concluded, inter alia, that, under the waiver rule announced in State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), the defendant failed to preserve his claim that the trial court had incorrectly instructed the jury on the state of mind required to find him guilty of both offenses. See State v. Herring, supra, 170–71. On appeal to this court, the defendant does not challenge the Appellate Court's conclusion that he waived his jury instruction claim under Kitchens. Instead, he requests that the waiver rule in Kitchens be overturned and that his claim be reviewed under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). He contends that, if this court reviews his claim under Golding, he would prevail because the trial court's instruction resulted in harmful error. In the alternative, the defendant seeks review under the plain error doctrine. Our resolution of the defendant's request to overturn the waiver rule is controlled by our decision in State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. ___, ___, ___ A.3d ___ (2016), in which we considered the rule's continued viability and concluded that it should not be overturned. Accordingly, we reject the defendant's request to overturn the waiver rule in Kitchens and to review his jury instruction claim under Golding. We also decline to review his claim under the plain error doctrine because such review is beyond the scope of the certified question.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.")

• SC19383 Concurrence - State v. Herring
• SC19383 Concurrence - State v. Herring

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

The Office of Legislative Research has recently published the following reports:

• Booster Seat Requirements - 2016-R-0228
• Medicaid Cost-Sharing - 2016-R-0240
  
• 2016 Legislation Affecting DDS And DMHAS Services -2016-R-0241
• Disposition of Unclaimed Bodies - 2016-R-0233

• Posted in:
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

The Office of Legislative Research report on Acts Affecting Crime and Public Safety has a section on changes to Diversionary Programs.

Public Act 16-182 (summary) "permits courts to refer persons under the age of twenty-one who are charged with underage drinking or motor vehicle offenses to a program that will educate them in the dangers and consequences of underage drinking and other risky behavior."

Public Act 16-55, sec. 9, (summary) "prohibits the court from suspending prosecution and ordering treatment for anyone who was driving a commercial motor vehicle (large truck or bus) or held a CDL or commercial driver's instruction permit when he or she was charged with any of the following crimes: (1) DUI, (2) DUI under age 21, (3) 2^nd degree assault with a motor vehicle, or (4) 2^nd degree manslaughter with a motor vehicle."

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• FYI,
• New Legislation

AC37881 - State v. Robles (Kidnapping first degree; attempt to commit kidnapping first degree; sexual assault fourth degree; "The self-represented defendant, Rolando Robles, appeals from the judgment of the trial court dismissing his motion to correct an illegal sentence.The defendant was convicted, following his guilty pleas made pursuant to the Alford doctrine, of kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92 (a) (2) (A), attempt to commit kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-92 (a) (2) (A) and sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant, raising a number of constitutional and nonconstitutional issues, claims that the trial court improperly concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider his motion to correct an illegal sentence.The defendant's appellate claims, however, challenge the validity of his conviction rather than his sentence or the sentencing proceeding. We conclude, therefore, that the court properly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

AC37637 - State v. Lepeska (Stalking in second degree; "The defendant argues, "[a]ll of the conduct set forth by the state amounts to an attempt to reconcile by a man who did not know that his relationship was over." We disagree.")

• Posted in:
• Criminal Law & Procedure,
• Recent Opinions

From the Connecticut Judicial Branch:

Effective January 1, 2017, Connecticut attorneys will be required to attend a minimum of 12 credit hours of continuing legal education (CLE) as part of their license requirement. On November 7, 2016, the MCLE Commission shall offer a presentation on the new obligation and answer questions as to what type of CLE is appropriate, how to report compliance and who may be exempt from the obligation. Attorneys who attend shall receive a minimum of 1 credit of CLE in ethics that can be applied towards their 2017 MCLE requirement.

Seminar Details
Topic: MCLE: An Introduction
When: Monday, November 7, 2016, at 2 p.m.
Where: Jury Assembly Room located in the Middlesex Judicial District Courthouse at 1 Court Street in Middletown

Register for the Seminar

• Posted in:
• FYI

SC19534 - Sowell v. DiCara ("PER CURIAM. In the course of a civil action pending between the plaintiff, Julie M. Sowell, and the defendants Southbury-Middlebury Youth and Family Services, Inc. (Southbury-Middlebury), Dierdre H. DiCara, and Mary Jane McClay, the plaintiff sought to support her challenge to Southbury-Middlebury's counterclaim against her by filing an application, pursuant to General Statutes § 33-1089, to determine the validity of the election of its directors and officers. The plaintiff now appeals, upon our grant of her petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing her appeal from the decision of the trial court granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the application. In the present appeal, the plaintiff claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the trial court's dismissal of the application was not an appealable final judgment under the first or second prong of State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.")

• Posted in:
• Employment Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

SC19537 - Keller v. Keller ("PER CURIAM. In the course of this protracted marital dissolution action between the plaintiff, Beth Keller, and the defendant, Richard Keller, the trial court entered an order of contempt against the plaintiff on the ground that she had failed to provide the defendant with her new address after she moved to another residence with the parties' three minor children, in violation of the automatic orders under Practice Book § 25-5 (a) (2) and a court order containing the parties' parenting agreement. The plaintiff appealed from the contempt order to the Appellate Court, claiming that neither authority literally applied to the facts of the present case. Keller v. Keller, 158 Conn. App. 538, 547, 119 A.3d 1213 (2015). Specifically, the plaintiff contended that: (1) § 25-5 (a) (2) was inapplicable because its notice requirement is limited to a move from the marital home, not subsequent changes of residence; and (2) the defendant's actual knowledge of the location of her current residence satisfied the notice requirements of the court order. Id., 546–47. Following the Appellate Court's judgment affirming the contempt order; id., 548; the plaintiff appealed to this court upon our grant of certification. Keller v. Keller, 319 Conn. 906, 122 A.3d 638 (2015).

After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

The appeal is dismissed.")

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• Recent Opinions

Statewide Legal Services and CTLawHelp.org have created a new online resource, Families Change: Guide to Separation and Divorce. It provides "age-appropriate information to help kids, teens, and parents deal with a family breakup."

The website has three different guides, each written with a specific audience in mind: parents, teens, and kids ages 6-10. In addition to presenting relevant legal information in accessible, easy-to-understand language tailored to each demographic group, the guides also sensitively address many common questions regarding family and personal matters that can arise in divorce.

• Posted in:
• Family Law,
• FYI,
• Self-Help