State v. Kallberg
Citation | 326 Conn. 1,160 A.3d 1034 |
Decision Date | 13 June 2017 |
Docket Number | SC 19536 |
Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Craig KALLBERG |
Margaret Gaffney Radionovas, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Brian Preleski, state's attorney, and Kevin Murphy, former supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellant (state).
Alice Osedach, senior assistant public defender, for the appellee (defendant).
Rogers, C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, Espinosa and Robinson, Js.
The defendant, Craig Kallberg, was convicted of larceny in the third degree as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–8 and 53a–124 (a) (2) and conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 and 53a–124 (a) (2) after he unsuccessfully moved to dismiss those charges on the basis of the state's prior entry of a nolle prosequi on the same charges. The issue in this certified appeal1 is whether the Appellate Court properly reversed the judgment of conviction on the ground that the entry of a nolle on those charges and nolles on charges in three other cases was part of an agreement between the state and the defendant, contemplating a global disposition supported by consideration, which barred his prosecution in the present proceeding. The state contends that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the trial court's finding that the parties intended to enter into an agreement relating to only one of the cases was clearly erroneous, or to the extent that the agreement was ambiguous, it should have been construed in the defendant's favor. State v. Kallberg , 157 Conn.App. 720, 729–30, 118 A.3d 84 (2015). We conclude that the agreement was ambiguous as to the parties' intent, and therefore must be construed in the defendant's favor as a global disposition. Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Court's judgment.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts. Michael Higgins, an acquaintance of the defendant, confessed to the police that he and the defendant had pawned several items, including a set of golf clubs. A resident of the same apartment building where Higgins lived had reported to the police that various items had been stolen from his basement storage locker; many of those items were the same items that Higgins admitted to having pawned. In August, 2010, the defendant was arrested and charged with burglary in the third degree, larceny in the third degree, and conspiracy to commit both of those offenses under docket number CR–10–0046439–T (burglary/larceny case).
By September, 2011, the defendant had three other cases pending against him from arrests prior to 2011, each under separate docket numbers, including one charging him with possession of narcotics (drug case).2 In September, 2011, the state entered a nolle prosequi in each of the defendant's four pending cases at a hearing before Judge Kahn, who had been assigned to serve as the trial judge.3 Approximately one year later, the state initiated the present prosecution, charging the defendant with larceny in the third degree as an accessory and conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree for his role in the storage locker thefts.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming that they had been permanently disposed of as part of an agreement (nolle agreement) that was memorialized on the record in the hearing before Judge Kahn. The defendant asserted that Judge Strackbein had assisted the parties in negotiating a plea agreement that was a global disposition of the four pending cases, under which he would plead guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia in the drug case and pay a fine of $300, in exchange for which the state would enter nolles in the other three cases, including the burglary/larceny case. The defendant further asserted that due to Judge Strackbein's subsequent unavailability to accept the plea, the parties had effectuated a comparable global disposition whereby the defendant made a donation of $271 to the Connecticut Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund (victim's fund) in exchange for nolles on all of his cases. The state opposed the motion, contending that the donation was consideration for the nolle in the drug case only.
The sole evidence offered in connection with the motion to dismiss was the transcript of the hearing before Judge Kahn, which provided in relevant part as follows:
[the defendant ] to make a donation of $271 to the victim's fund.4 Do we have a copy of that receipt in the file, madam clerk?
Judge Kahn explained that Judge Strackbein was unavailable due to a scheduling conflict but that Judge Strackbein had "assured me that all the matters had been resolved.... I was hesitant to engage in the plea negotiations because I was going to be the trial judge, so I couldn't do that. But [the prosecutor] did tell me that he had some issues. He would nolle some matters because he had an inability to get certain witnesses, but he didn't share with me the substance of it....
Jud...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moye v. Warden
...the language is unambiguous, we must give the contract effect according to its terms." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. When the language is ambiguous, however, ambiguities are construed against the state. Id., 16; State v. Rivers, supra, 283 Conn. 725. "Our jurispr......
-
Banks v. Comm'r of Corr.
...fact ...)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lewis , 273 Conn. 509, 516–17, 871 A.2d 986 (2005) ; see also State v. Kallberg , 326 Conn. 1, 17–18, 160 A.3d 1034 (2017) ; C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. Bridgeport , 282 Conn. 54, 87, 919 A.2d 1002 (2007) (when trial court makes dec......
-
Godfrey v. Comm'r of Corr.
...of law subject to plenary review." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kallberg , 326 Conn. 1, 14–16, 160 A.3d 1034 (2017)."The doctrine of frustration of purpose ... excuses a promisor in certain situations where the objectives of the contract ......
-
State v. A. B.
...and resulting denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss is de novo." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kallberg , 326 Conn. 1, 12, 160 A.3d 1034 (2017). Whether the trial court correctly determined that § 54-193 (c) is inapplicable to the present case presents a question of sta......