State v. Wheat

• Decision Date: 02 March 1999
• Citation: 725 A.2d 993
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals
• Parties: (Conn.App. 1999) STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CLAYTON E. WHEAT 18116

725 A.2d 993 (Conn.App. 1999)

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CLAYTON E. WHEAT

18116

Connecticut Court of Appeals

Argued January 26

March 02, 1999

Allan F. Friedman, for the appellant (defendant). Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Eugene J. Callahan, state's attorney, and Mitchell Rubin, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Lavery, Spear and Daly, Js.

Per Curiam.

Information charging the defendant with the crimes of threatening and reckless endangerment in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk and tried to the court, Bingham, J.; judgment of guilty from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.

OPINION

The defendant was convicted, after a trial to the court, of threatening in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-62, and reckless endangerment in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-63. He claims that the trial court's factual findings are not warranted and that its legal Conclusions are incorrect. After reviewing the record we conclude that these claims are meritless. The trial court is the Judge of the credibility of witnesses and its legal Conclusions properly flowed from its factual findings. See State v. Leary, 51 Conn. App. 497, 503-504, ___ A.2d ___ (1999). "`We do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a Conclusion other than the one reached . . . nor do we retry the case or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses.'" In re Tabitha T., 51 Conn. App. 595, 599, ___ A.2d ___ (1999).

The judgment is affirmed