Dentamaro v. Motor Vehicles Com'r, 107132
| Decision Date | 17 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 107132,107132 |
| Citation | 20 Conn.Supp. 205,130 A.2d 568 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | Frank DENTAMARO v. MOTOR VEHICLES COMMISSIONER. |
Joseph J. Trantolo, Hartford, for plaintiff.
John J. Bracken, Atty. Gen., and Louis Weinstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant.
This appeal is brought on the claim that the commissioner acted arbitrarily and in abuse of discretion in his refusal to remove the suspension of the plaintiff's operator's license.
Prior to June 29, 1956, the plaintiff was one of a group of twenty persons charged in the Hartford County Superior Court with the possession, control, selling, administering and dispensing of narcotic drugs, under § 3962 of the General Statutes, § 1595c of the 1953 Cumulative Supplement and § 2103d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement, and with conspiracy to violate §§ 3962 and 8876 of the General Statutes, and §§ 2103d and 3352d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement. On March 6, 1956, the plaintiff, who then was twenty-one years of age, was put to plea, pleaded not guilty and elected a jury trial. The plaintiff was not presented again until June 29, 1956, when the state's attorney, the plaintiff and his counsel appeared in court. The state's attorney related that the plaintiff was arrested on January 14, 1956, and that at first the state had three parties who would testify or at least give statements to the effect that the plaintiff had been using heroin on various occasions; that two of the parties recanted and refused to testify; that the plaintiff himself had consistently denied any guilt and had been ready to go to trial; that the state prepared the case and found that it had no corpus delicti, no narcotics having been found on or about the plaintiff; that the state was satisfied that the case against him was very weak and should be nolled. The plaintiff, speaking through his counsel, denied that he had ever used narcotics, asserted that he had refused to accept a nolle and had insisted on a trial, and consented, in view of this presentation, to the court's acceptance of the state's recommendation. Thereupon, the court entered a nolle in the case.
On July 19, 1956, the plaintiff was heard by the defendant in regard to seeking a removal of the suspension of his operator's license. This license was suspended on March 6, 1956, for an indefinite period, under the claimed authority of § 1345d of the 1955 Cumulative Supplement, following his bind-over to the Superior Court on the narcotics charges. The plaintiff since March 6, 1956, has always been ready and willing to go to trial and continually has protested his innocence of these charges. At the July 19 hearing, the plaintiff admitted that he knew some of the persons involved in the narcotics cases. When asked, 'How come you were associated with these people, who are known users of this stuff?' he replied, Following this hearing, the suspension was ordered to remain in effect.
At the trial in the immediate case, Thomas Hurney, testifying for the defendant, stated that in connection with the July 19 hearing and the decision based thereon, he considered that the plaintiff and others were bound over to the Superior Court on narcotics charges; that the court nolled his case instead of his obtaining a dismissal or a not-guilty finding; that statements given by two of the persons involved in the group of twenty bound over, although not shown to the plaintiff at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Smolen
...Shea v. Corbett, 97 Conn. 141, 145, 115 A. 694, 696; Dempsey v. Tynan, 143 Conn. 202, 206, 120 A.2d 700; Dentamaro v. Motor Vehicles Commissioner, 20 Conn.Sup. 205, 208, 130 A.2d 568; 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 60. In addition to these regulations, the commissioner of motor vehicles is empo......
-
State v. Rhodes, 8225
...and an accused may afterwards be re-indicted or re-informed against and prosecuted for the same offense. Dentamaro v. Motor Vehicles Commissioner, 20 Conn. Sup. 205, 130 A.2d 568; State v. Berry, 298 S.W.2d 429 (Mo.1957); State v. Lonon, 331 Mo. 591, 56 S.W.2d 378; Zoll v. Allen, 93 F.Supp.......
-
State v. Anonymous
...48 A.2d 560; State v. Main, 31 Conn. 572, 576; State v. Ackerman, 27 Conn.Sup. 209, 211, 234 A.2d 120; Dentamaro v. Motor Vehicles Commissioner, 20 Conn.Sup. 205, 207, 130 A.2d 568. The provision of § 54-142a(c) for automatic erasure thirteen months after a nolle of "all police and court re......
-
State v. Negron, MV
...with or without a hearing.' 'This does not mean that this power is absolute and not subject to review.' Dentamaro v. Motor Vehicles Commissioner, 20 Conn.Sup. 205, 208, 130 A.2d 568, 570. We cannot agree with the state's claim that the commissioner was exercising his powers under § The sole......