State v. Brito
Decision Date | 17 January 2017 |
Docket Number | AC 36541, (AC 36543) |
Citation | 170 Conn.App. 269,154 A.3d 535 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Edwin BRITO |
Emily Wagner, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy F. Costello, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Brian Preleski, state's attorney, and Helen J. McLellan, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Lavine, Keller and Mihalakos, Js.
In this consolidated appeal, the defendant, Edwin Brito, appeals from the judgments of conviction rendered by the trial court following his conditional pleas of nolo contendere made pursuant to General Statutes § 54–94a. In one case, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a hallucinogenic substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a–279(b) and, in the other case, the defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a–277(a). The defendant entered the pleas after the court denied his two motions to suppress certain evidence that the police discovered following two warrantless searches. These searches were incident to two unrelated traffic stops involving the defendant. As he did before the trial court, the defendant challenges the constitutionality of these searches. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural histories underlie the present appeals. On April 23, 2012, the police stopped the defendant while he was operating his automobile, conducted a patdown search of the defendant and, later, conducted a warrantless search of his automobile. The police seized marijuana, PCP, and heroin from the automobile. In connection with this incident, the defendant was charged in docket number H15N–CR12–0263322–S with several drug related offenses, including possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell. On June 22, 2012, the defendant was a passenger in an automobile that was stopped by the police. During a warrantless search of the automobile, the police seized a substance believed to be saturated with PCP from the area of the front passenger seat. In connection with this incident, the defendant was charged in docket number H15N–CR12–0264151–S with possession of a hallucinogenic substance.
In each of these criminal cases, the defendant challenged the lawfulness of the police conduct and filed motions to suppress the evidence seized by the police as the fruits of police illegality. With respect to both the April and June incidents, the defendant argued that the police lacked probable cause to stop the automobile, to conduct a patdown search of his person, and to search the automobile. The state objected to both motions. On September 12 and 25, 2013, the court held a consolidated evidentiary hearing related to both motions to suppress. The parties submitted posthearing briefs to the court, and, on November 15, 2013, the court heard oral argument related to the motions.
In its memorandum of decision of January 3, 2014, the court, D'Addabbo, J. , separately addressed each motion to suppress evidence. It denied both motions. Later, the defendant pleaded nolo contendere, in docket H15N–CR12–0264151–S, to possession of a hallucinogenic substance and, in docket number H15N–CR12–0263322–S, to possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell. Both pleas, which were accepted by the court, Hadden, J. , were conditioned on the defendant's right to take an appeal from the court's denial of his motions to suppress. In each case, the trial court determined that the court's ruling on the motion to suppress was dispositive of the case. In docket number H15N–CR12–0264151–S, the court sentenced the defendant to two and one-half years incarceration, followed by a term of special parole of two and one-half years, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in docket number H15N–CR12–0263322–S. In docket number H15N–CR12–0263322–S, the court sentenced the defendant to two and one-half years incarceration, followed by a term of special parole of four years, to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in docket number H15N–CR12–0264151–S.
In AC 36541, the defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered in docket number H15N–CR12–0264151–S. In AC 36543, the defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered in docket number H15N–CR12–0263322–S. This court has consolidated the two appeals. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
In both appeals, the defendant challenges the judgments of conviction on the ground that the court improperly denied his motions to suppress evidence. Accordingly, before turning to the merits of each appeal, we set forth general principles of review that apply to the defendant's claims. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kendrick , 314 Conn. 212, 222, 100 A.3d 821 (2014).
In its memorandum of decision with respect to the motion to suppress filed in docket number H15N–CR12–0264151–S, the court set forth the following findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bradley
...the issue of standing is not subject to waiver and may be raised at any time." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brito , 170 Conn. App. 269, 285, 154 A.3d 535, cert. denied, 324 Conn. 925, 155 A.3d 755 (2017)."Standing is the legal right to set judicial machinery in motion. One c......
-
Pacheco v. State
...O.S. , 425 Ill.Dec. 258, 112 N.E.3d 621 (Ill. App. Ct.), appeal denied , 424 Ill.Dec. 839, 110 N.E.3d 189 (Ill. 2018) ; State v. Brito , 170 Conn.App. 269, 154 A.3d 535, cert. denied , 324 Conn. 925, 155 A.3d 755 (2017).3 See Criminal Law—Possession of Marijuana—Civil Offense: Hearing on S.......
-
State v. Andino
...of supplemental authority submitted to this court by the defendant, he argues that this court's recent decision in State v. Brito, 170 Conn.App. 269, 154 A.3d 535, cert. denied, 324 Conn. 925, 155 A.3d 755 (2017), stands for the proposition that this court may evaluate whether a trial court......
-
Pacheco v. State
...770 N.W.2d 145 (Minn. 2009); In re O.S., 112 N.E.3d 621 (Ill. App. Ct.), appeal denied, 110 N.E.3d 189 (Ill. 2018); State v. Brito, 154 A.3d 535 (Conn. App. Ct.), cert. denied, 155 A.3d 755 (Conn. 2017). 3. See Criminal Law—Possession of Marijuana—Civil Offense: Hearing on S.B. 364 Before t......
-
Motor vehicle searches
...personal use, and vehicle’s occupants were very nervous and gave inconstant stories about their whereabouts to police. • State v. Brito , 154 A.3d 535 (Conn. Ct App. 2017). Smell of burnt marijuana combined with seeing a marijuana roach gave rise to probable cause to believe defendant was c......
-
Motor vehicle searches
...personal use, and vehicle’s occupants were very nervous and gave inconstant stories about their whereabouts to police. State v. Brito , 154 A.3d 535 (Conn. Ct App. 2017). Smell of burnt marijuana combined with seeing a marijuana roach gave rise to probable cause to believe defendant was c......