State v. Cullum

Decision Date08 December 1961
Citation176 A.2d 587,149 Conn. 728
CourtConnecticut Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE of Connecticut v. Kenneth R. CULLUM. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

William F. Mangan, New Britain, for appellant (defendant) before Appellate Division.

James R. Burton, Asst. Pros. Atty., Rocky Hill, for appellee (state) before Appellate Division.

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In part one of the information against him in the Circuit Court, the defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. He was found guilty by the jury. In a trial to the court on part two of the information, the defendant was found to be a second offender and sentence was pronounced. Upon appeal by the defendant to the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court, the judgment of conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered. The defendant also attempted to take a separate appeal from his conviction as a second offender. The Appellate Division dismissed that appeal on the theory that the statute (General Statutes § 14-227) under which sentence was imposed on the defendant as a second offender created no separate crime, that there was only one judgment and that a separate appeal from the court's determination that the defendant was a second offender would not lie. In this decision the Appellate Division was clearly correct. Bloom v. Lundburg, 149 Conn. 67, 175 A.2d 568. The defendant has, nevertheless, filed a petition for certification of the case for appeal from the Appellate Division. He was the prevailing party in the Appellate Division and is in no position at this time to take an appeal from its decision. His petition for certification must, accordingly, be denied.

The opinion of the Appellate Division is chiefly concerned with the question whether the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to grant a mistrial when it learned, before the verdict was rendered, that a discussion of the defendant's status as a second offender had been held in the hearing of two of the jurors. 1 The defendant's proposed appeal to us does not bear upon that phase of the case. Consequently, our denial of certification cannot properly be construed as indicating either approval or disapproval of the decision of the Appellate Division on the principal question before it.

Since the procedure of certification is new in this state, the following general observations on the significance of a denial of certification may serve to prevent future misunderstanding. The procedure is not the equivalent of an appeal. It is designed to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Gipson v. Commissioner of Correction, (AC 17745)
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • August 10, 1999
    ...granting or denial of certification indicates neither approval nor disapproval of the Appellate Court's decision. State v. Cullum, 149 Conn. 728, 729-30, 176 A.2d 587 (1961); see also State v. Ellis, 224 Conn. 711, 722, 621 A.2d 250 (1993) (certification process enables Supreme Court to lim......
  • Landmarks Holding Corp. v. Bermant
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • November 17, 1981
    ...case in which the Connecticut Supreme Court has seen fit to grant certification can hardly be described as "sham". See State v. Cullum, 149 Conn. 728, 176 A.2d 587 (1961); Conn.Practice Book § 761C. This would surely seem to be true where, as in the instant case, a twelve page opinion, Schw......
  • Bowers v. Connecticut Nat. Bank, Civ. No. H-87-163(AHN).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • September 29, 1987
    ...indicate that court's approval of either the result reached or the opinion rendered by a lower court. State v. Cullum, 149 Conn. 728, 730, 176 A.2d 587, 588 (1961) (per curiam). See also State v. Chisholm, 155 Conn. 706, 706-07, 236 A.2d 465, 465-66 (1967) (per curiam); Pagano v. Board of E......
  • Prevedini v. Mobil Oil Corp.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1973
    ...thereby the interests of justice required this court to review it. See State v. Chisholm,155 Conn. 706, 236 A.2d 465; State v. Cullum, 149 Conn. 728, 730, 176 A.2d 587. The Appellate Division erred in vacating the stay order instituted by the Circuit There is error and the case is remanded ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT