Here are some recent decisions released by our appellate Court:  The biggest issue for criminal defense attorneys is Number 1, AC 31049  State v. Buie.

AC31049 – State v. Buie (“In this appeal, we must determine whether the apparent authority doctrine, which is an exception to the warrant requirement, is constitutional under the constitution of Connecticut.”)

AC31965 – State v. Butler (“The petitioner, James L. Butler, appeals following the denial of his petition for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of certain evidence that had been introduced by the state in his criminal trial, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-102kk. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that a reasonable probability existed that he would not have been prosecuted or convicted if exculpatory results obtained through DNA testing had been available at his criminal trial.”)

AC31865 – State v. Cote (“The petitioner, Roger P. Cote, appeals following the denial of his petition for DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) testing of certain evidence that had been introduced by the state in his criminal trial, pursuant to General Statutes § 54-102kk. On appeal, the petitioner claims that the trial court improperly concluded that he failed to establish that a reasonable probability existed that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory results obtained through DNA testing had been available at his criminal trial.”)

AC32074 – State v. Chavarro (“On appeal, the defendant claims that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion because (1) prior to accepting his plea, it did not inquire as to whether his attorney had advised him of the deportation consequences of his plea, (2) after accepting his plea, it made statements that rendered the § 54-1j advisement ambiguous, and (3) it failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on his motion sua sponte. In addition, the defendant claims that he was denied the right to a fair trial.”

AC31572 – State v. Milner (“The defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence for the court to find by a preponderance of the evidence that a probation violation had occurred, (2) the court discouraged him from exercising his right to allocution during the dispositional phase of the probation revocation hearing and (3) the court abused its discretion when, during the dispositional phase, it revoked his probation and sentenced him to forty-eight months imprisonment.”)