State v. Yurch
| Decision Date | 28 November 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 15230,15230 |
| Citation | 667 A.2d 797,235 Conn. 469 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. John YURCH. |
Louis S. Avitabile, with whom was Meryl Anne Spat, Waterbury, for appellant (defendant).
James M. Ralls, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John A. Connelly, State's Attorney, and Robin A. Lipsky, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee (state).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, NORCOTT, KATZ and PALMER, JJ.
The only certified issue in this criminal appeal is whether a defendant who, at trial, argued that forgery in the third degree is a lesser included offense of forgery in the second degree is entitled thereafter to appellate review of his belated claim that the former crime is not a lesser included offense of the latter crime. After a trial to the court, the defendant, John Yurch, was acquitted of forgery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-139(a)(1), 1 but was convicted of two counts of forgery in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-140. 2 The trial court subsequently found that the defendant was in violation of probation pursuant to General Statutes § 53a-32. 3 On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction as to the two counts of forgery in the third degree. State v. Yurch, 37 Conn.App. 72, 654 A.2d 1246 (1995). This court granted, in part, the defendant's petition for certification to appeal. 4 After examining the record on appeal and after considering the briefs and the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that the appeal should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. In the circumstances of this case, the issue on which we granted certification was sufficiently addressed in the opinion of the Appellate Court, and it would serve no useful purpose for us to amplify the discussion therein contained. See State v. Busque, 229 Conn. 839, 842, 643 A.2d 1281 (1994); State v. Murray, 225 Conn. 524, 527, 624 A.2d 377 (1993).
The appeal is dismissed.
1 General Statutes § 53a-139 provides in relevant part:
The trial court also acquitted the defendant of attempted larceny in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-135.
2 General Statutes § 53a-140 provides in relevant part: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chemlen
...trickery, or other deception.’ ” (Citations omitted.) State v. Yurch, 37 Conn.App. 72, 80–81, 654 A.2d 1246, appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 469, 667 A.2d 797 (1995). The defendant's argument fails for two reasons. First, § 53a–139, like General Statutes § 53a–140, does not address the state of......
-
State v. Chemlen
...trickery, or other deception.' " (Citations omitted.) State v. Yurch, 37 Conn. App. 72, 80-81, 654 A.2d 1246, appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 469, 667 A.2d 797 (1995). The defendant's argument fails for two reasons. First, § 53a-139, like General Statutes § 53a-140, does not address the state o......
-
State v. Dickman, 33781.
...the second degree and forgery in the third degree. See State v. Yurch, 37 Conn.App. 72, 78–79, 654 A.2d 1246, appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 469, 667 A.2d 797 (1995). In Yurch, the defendant argued that his conviction for forgery in the third degree was improper because the state failed to pro......
-
State v. Tomlin
...offense of another presents a question of law. See State v. Yurch, 37 Conn. App. 72, 77, 654 A.2d 1246, appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 469, 667 A.2d 797 (1995). Accordingly, our review is de novo. E.g., State v. Holmes, 257 Conn. 248, 252, 777 A.2d 627 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 939, 122 S......