State v. Holley
Decision Date | 28 December 2016 |
Docket Number | SC 19662 |
Citation | 152 A.3d 532,324 Conn. 344 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jubar T. HOLLEY |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
William A. Adsit, North Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
Rocco A. Chiarenza, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, Jennifer F. Miller, deputy assistant state's attorney, and John F. Fahey, senior assistant state's attorney, Hartford, for the appellee (state).
Rogers, C.J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Robinson, Js.
The defendant, Jubar T. Holley, appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court following his pleas of nolo contendere; see General Statutes § 54–94a ;1 to four counts of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2013) § 53a–217 (a).2 The defendant entered these pleas after the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress certain evidence discovered following the execution of a search warrant at his house. In this appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress certain evidence seized as a result of the search warrant that the defendant claims was issued without a showing of probable cause in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution3 and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution.4 We disagree with the defendant and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. In March 14, 2013, Supervisory Inspector Michael Sullivan of the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice and Detective Zachary Sherry of the Hartford Police Department (affiants) applied for a search and seizure warrant pertaining to the defendant's residence, a single-family home located in the town of East Hartford. The affiants were assigned to the Greater New Britain Shooting Task Force, which is described as a multiagency investigative unit charged with reducing violent crime in the greater New Britain area. The affiants claim over thirty-five years of combined investigative experience.
In their application for a search warrant, the affiants averred what may be summarized as follows: On March 4, 2013, Sullivan was in contact with David Pierro, who claimed he was a retired police officer from Port Chester, New York. Pierro stated that he had sold a "M16 AR 15 A2 upper receiver" (upper receiver) to the defendant through the website Gunbroker.com. Pierro stated that he notified the police regarding this sale because he had performed an Internet search on the defendant's name and discovered that the defendant had previously been involved in a shooting.
The affiants discovered that the defendant had a prior conviction for conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree, stemming from a 1994 shooting in New Britain. Sullivan informed Pierro of this fact. Having confirmed the defendant's felony status, Pierro then forwarded documents from Gunbroker.com to Sullivan indicating that the defendant had made eight other transactions through the website in the previous two years. Pierro also agreed to ship the upper receiver to Sullivan upon receipt of payment from the defendant so that the affiants could arrange a controlled delivery of the upper receiver to the defendant.
The affiants averred that they confirmed relevant information regarding the defendant's address. They confirmed that the shipping address that the defendant reportedly provided to Pierro belonged to the defendant by verifying land records and verifying the automobile registration of a car parked in the driveway. Additionally, the affiants verified that the telephone number the defendant provided to Gunbroker.com correlated to the defendant's address. On March 7, 2013, Sullivan received an e-mail from Pierro containing a copy of a money order for the purchase price of the upper receiver from the defendant, which listed the defendant's home address. On March 11, 2013, Sullivan received a package from Pierro through the mail containing the upper receiver and an envelope containing the money order, which listed the defendant's address as the return address.
Pierro informed the police that the "only reason" someone would purchase the upper receiver is if he were assembling an assault rifle. Pierro elaborated that the fact that the defendant made eight additional purchases within the previous two years on Gunbroker.com further supported his conclusion. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which was assisting the affiants in their investigation,5 agreed with Pierro's conclusion. Additionally, ATF Special Agent Jacob Berrick informed the affiants that he was able to access the defendant's most recent purchase on Gunbroker.com, a "MGW AR–15 AR15 90 round drum," which the affiants averred is a mechanism that holds the ammunition for the firearm, for $125.6 The affiants averred that the discovery of this transaction supported the conclusion that the defendant was purchasing separate firearm parts in order to assemble a complete, functioning firearm.
Moreover, the affiants averred that from their training and experience, they The affiants further averred that, from their training and experience, they have found that those who illegally possess firearms commonly store such firearms in their residence.
The search warrant was issued on March 14, 2013, and executed the following day. The police seized numerous firearms and firearm related items from the defendant's residence. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence claiming that the search warrant was not supported by probable cause. See Practice Book §§ 41–12 and 41–13 (4). After a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied the defendant's motion and later filed a memorandum of decision. The defendant entered pleas of nolo contendere to four counts of criminal possession of a firearm in violation of § 53a–217 (a), conditioned on his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. See General Statutes § 54–94a ; Practice Book § 61–6 (a) (2) (A). This appeal followed.7
We begin by setting forth the relevant standard of review. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Buddhu , 264 Conn. 449, 459, 825 A.2d 48 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 1030, 124 S.Ct. 2106, 158 L.Ed.2d 712 (2004).
The legal principles that guide our analysis are well established. Both the fourth amendment to the United States constitution and article first, § 7, of the Connecticut constitution prescribe that a search warrant shall issue only upon a showing of probable cause. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shields , 308 Conn. 678, 689–90, 69 A.3d 293 (2013), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1040, 188 L.Ed.2d 123 (2014). The determination of probable cause is reached by applying a "totality of the circumstances" test. State v. Flores , 319 Conn. 218, 225, 125 A.3d 157 (2015), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 1529, 194 L.Ed.2d 615 (2016) ; see also Florida v. Harris , ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1050, 1055, 185 L.Ed.2d 61 (2013) ( .
"The role of an appellate court reviewing the validity of a warrant is to determine whether the affidavit at issue presented a substantial factual basis for the [issuing judge's] conclusion that probable cause existed." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Duntz , 223 Conn. 207, 215, 613 A.2d 224 (1992). (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Flores , supra, 319 Conn....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Correa
...probable cause is a question of law ... subject to plenary review on appeal." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holley , 324 Conn. 344, 351, 152 A.3d 532 (2016). The test for determining probable cause in the context of a search is well settled. "Probable cause to search exists i......
-
State v. Cane
...added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Shields , supra, 308 Conn. at 691, 69 A.3d 293 ; see also State v. Holley , 324 Conn. 344, 353, 152 A.3d 532 (2016) ("[i]n evaluating whether the warrant was predicated on probable cause, a reviewing court may consider only the information ......
- Gabriel v. Gabriel
-
State v. Holley
...trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. The defendant's conviction was upheld by our Supreme Court. See State v. Holley , 324 Conn. 344, 346–50, 152 A.3d 532 (2016) (affirming denial of defendant's motion to suppress). The trial court sentenced the defendant to five years of incarce......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...326 Conn. at 333. [130] Id. at 345-47. [131] Id. at 348 (quoting Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000)). [132] Id. [133] 324 Conn. 344, 152 A.3d 532 (2016). [134] Id. at 353. [135] Id. [136] Id. at 354. [137] Id. [138] Id. at 356. [139] 323 Conn. 34, 145 A.3d 861 (2016). [140] Id. at 4......
-
A Servey of Criminal Law Opinion
...326 Conn, at 333. [130] Id. at 345-47. [131] Id. at 348 (quoting Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334 (2000)). [132] Id. [133] 324 Conn. 344, 152 A.3d 532 (2016). [134] Id. at 353. [135] Id. [136] Id. at 354. [137] Id. [138] Id. at 356. [139] 323 Conn. 34, 145 A.3d 861 (2016). [140] Id. at 4......