State v. Steele

Decision Date29 August 2017
Docket NumberAC 37956.
Citation176 Conn.App. 1,169 A.3d 797
Parties STATE of Connecticut v. Thomas STEELE
CourtConnecticut Court of Appeals

James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Maria V. Morse, certified legal intern, for the appellant (defendant).

Rocco A. Chiarenza, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Kevin D. Lawlor, state's attorney, and Amy L. Bepko, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Alvord, Sheldon and Norcott, Js.

ALVORD, J.

The defendant, Thomas Steele, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–134 (a) (4), conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 (a) and 53a–134 (a) (4), and conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 (a) and 53a–124 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of robbery in the first degree; (2) the trial court abused its discretion and violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution when it permitted a detective to testify about historic cell site analysis without being qualified as an expert witness; and (3) his cumulative conviction and sentences for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit larceny violate the double jeopardy clause of the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. We agree with the defendant that his cumulative convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit robbery and conspiracy to commit larceny violate the double jeopardy, but we reject the defendant's other claims. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in part and affirm the judgment in part.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In the early morning hours of Saturday, February 16, 2013, the defendant checked into a Comfort Inn in Naugatuck and paid the required $100 deposit in cash. Later that morning, at approximately 9:30 a.m., the defendant purchased a Beretta Airsoft BB gun (facsimile firearm), which looked like a Beretta style handgun, at a Walmart in Derby. Thereafter, the defendant returned to the Comfort Inn to check out. Caitlin Mitchell and an unidentified black male accompanied the defendant during the checkout process. When he was informed that he had to wait for housekeeping to check his room before his cash deposit would be refunded, the defendant became irate, insisting that he had to be somewhere and threatening to call the police if his deposit was not returned. Eventually, the hotel manager calmed the defendant down while the checkout process was completed. At approximately 11:30 a.m., after the hotel manager was informed that the defendant's room was in order, she placed the defendant's deposit on the counter beside her while she printed a receipt for the defendant. The defendant reached over the counter, grabbed the money, and left with Mitchell and the unidentified black male before the hotel manager could complete the checkout process. After exiting the hotel, all three individuals entered the defendant's green Cadillac Deville and left.1

At 11:54 a.m., the defendant ran into the Webster Bank in Seymour while wearing dark blue jeans, a black ski mask, and grey gloves. He pointed his facsimile firearm at Tara Weiss, the assistant bank manager, and ordered everybody "[to] get to the fucking floor." After the bank employees and customers complied with his order, the defendant jumped onto and then over the teller counter and aimed his facsimile firearm at Danielle George, a bank teller. He ordered her to open her cash drawer and place the money in the bag he provided. As George complied with his order, another teller behind the counter began to move. The defendant aimed his facsimile firearm at the other teller and told her "not to be a hero ...." The defendant returned his attention to George. George continued to put money in the defendant's bag and managed to place a dye pack in the bag as well.2 When George finished, the defendant took the bag and exited the bank.

On June 4, 2013, the defendant was arrested for his role in the bank robbery. In the operative information, the defendant was charged with robbery in the first degree, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit larceny in the third degree. After a trial, a jury found the defendant guilty of all counts. The defendant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of ten years of incarceration followed by four years of special parole.3 This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

We begin with the defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of robbery in the first degree as a principal, which was the only theory of liability the state pursued at trial and on which the court instructed the jury. The state responds that, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a jury to reasonably conclude that the defendant acted as a principal during the robbery. We agree with the state.

The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. As the robber exited the bank, he ordered Weiss to count to 100. Weiss initially complied and began counting. Once the robber left the bank, however, she jumped up, ran to the doors, and locked them. Weiss then returned to her station, pressed the bank's panic alarm, and called 911. After speaking with a 911 operator, Weiss reported the robbery to Webster Bank's emergency hotline and to the branch manager, Jason Rodriguez, who was in New York. Rodriguez immediately began driving back to Connecticut from New York. State and federal law enforcement personnel arrived at the bank shortly thereafter and obtained, inter alia, surveillance footage of the robbery. Surveillance footage from inside the bank revealed that the robber wore dark blue jeans, grey gloves, and a black ski mask. Surveillance footage from outside the bank revealed that a green vehicle, which was similar in appearance to the defendant's Cadillac, entered the bank parking lot shortly before the robbery and picked up an individual on Spruce Street shortly after the robbery.4

After leaving the bank, the robber and his companion(s) initially drove north on Route 8, stopping in Beacon Falls to dispose of the discharged dye pack and the cash that was burned when the dye pack discharged. Shortly thereafter, members of law enforcement, with the assistance of a pedestrian, recovered the dye pack and some of the burned and stained cash from an area near the Beacon Falls Police Department.

Later that day, at approximately 2 p.m., the defendant and an unidentified black male were traveling northbound on Route 8 when they stopped to dispose of a facsimile firearm by throwing it onto the embankment along the side of the highway. Unbeknownst to the defendant and his companion, Rodriguez, who was also traveling northbound on Route 8 on his way to the bank, observed this conduct. When he neared the defendant's Cadillac, he immediately noticed that it was being driven erratically. In response, he slowed down and watched as the Cadillac swerved into the breakdown lane, where he saw the driver throw an object over the roof of the Cadillac and onto the embankment. Because of the suspicious nature of this conduct and his knowledge of the recent robbery at his bank branch, Rodriguez used his cell phone to record his observations, including the vehicle's make, color, and license plate number and a brief physical description of the men in the driver's and front passenger's seats.5 He then reported the incident to the police. Shortly thereafter, officers recovered a black Beretta style facsimile firearm from the Route 8 embankment near the Bridgeport–Trumbull line. Notably, the tip of the recovered facsimile firearm was covered with black electrical tape.

Shortly after the incident along Route 8, the defendant purchased professional strength Goo Off and rubber cleaning gloves with cash at the Home Depot in Derby. He then proceeded to the Post Motor Inn in Milford where he rented a cabin in his own name and paid for it in cash. The following morning, February 17, 2013, the defendant checked into the Super 8 Motel in Milford with Mitchell, paying for the room with cash.

That evening, a patrol officer reported that she had located the Cadillac involved in the Webster Bank robbery in the Super 8 Motel parking lot. Shortly thereafter, officers investigating the bank robbery arrived. After speaking to the employees at the front desk of the motel and reviewing its surveillance footage, the officers determined that the defendant was associated with the Cadillac and that he was staying in room 206. After about fifteen minutes of knocking on the defendant's door, the defendant came to the window of his room but refused to open the door. He denied ever being in Seymour or knowing anything about the Cadillac in the parking lot, claiming that a friend had dropped him off at the motel. When the detectives asked him whether he knew anything about a bank robbery, he stated that he did not, but added that "if [the officers] had enough information on him, [they] would be arresting him right now." Members of the Milford Police Department then detained the defendant and Mitchell in the lobby of the Super 8 Motel. When special agent Lisa C. McNamara of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived, she attempted to talk to Mitchell, but the defendant kept yelling at her: "Don't talk to them, you don't have to talk to them, your parents have to be present, you don't have to talk to them." As a result, McNamara brought Mitchell outside of the lobby and they sat...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State v. Montanez
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 2018
    ...precision of drive testing makes it the preferred method for determining the shape and size of a cell sector ...." State v. Steele , 176 Conn. App. 1, 23–24, 169 A.3d 797, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 962, 172 A.3d 1261 (2017). Certain federal courts have had occasion to consider the admissibili......
  • State v. Turner
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • February 18, 2020
    ...because defendant did not raise claim during trial), cert. denied, 279 Conn. 902, 901 A.2d 1224 (2006) ; cf. State v. Steele , 176 Conn. App. 1, 24, 27, 31, 169 A.3d 797 (2017) (applying rule in Edwards retroactively when defendant preserved claim that court improperly permitted lay testimo......
  • State v. Soyini
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 2018
    ...however, what—all, none or some—of a witness' testimony to accept or reject." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Steele , 176 Conn. App. 1, 12, 169 A.3d 797, cert. denied, 327 Conn. 962, 172 A.3d 1261 (2017) ; State v. Young , 174 Conn. App. 760, 767, 166 A.3d 704, cert. denied, 3......
  • State v. Jackson
    • United States
    • Connecticut Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 2018
    ...to the present case because ‘a rule enunciated in a case presumptively applies retroactively to pending cases’ "); State v. Steele , 176 Conn. App. 1, 34, 169 A.3d 797 (concluding that " Edwards is controlling as to this [evidentiary] issue on appeal"), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 962, 172 A.3d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • 2017 Connecticut Appellate Review
    • United States
    • Connecticut Bar Association Connecticut Bar Journal No. 91, 2018
    • Invalid date
    ...79 (1986). [96] Holmes, 176 Conn.App. at 178. [97] Id. at 192-93 (Lavine, J., concurring). [98] Id. at 196-97. [99] Id. at 201. [100] 176 Conn.App. 1, 169 A.3d 797, cert, denied, 327 Conn. 962, 172 A.3d 1261 (2017). [101] 174 Conn.App. 298, 166 A.3d 727, cert, dismissed, 324 Conn. 9558, 171......

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