State v. Atkins

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Atkins

522 A.2d 1234, 203 Conn. 33, 1987 Conn. LEXIS 805

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedMarch 31, 1987

Docket13065

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 522 A.2d 1234 (State v. Atkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Atkins, 522 A.2d 1234, 203 Conn. 33, 1987 Conn. LEXIS 805 (Colo. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court holding the defendant, Anthony Atkins, for trial after a finding by the trial court that the state had established probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the crimes of murder and felony murder. This court gave notice to the parties to appear and be heard on whether the defendant’s appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. We conclude that the trial court’s order was not a final judgment and that this appeal should therefore be dismissed.

Because the trial court’s order was rendered before the defendant’s conviction and sentencing, the order is interlocutory and its appealability is governed by the rules set forth in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). As State v. Mitchell, 200 Conn. 323, 332, 512 A.2d 140 (1986), demonstrates, the order satisfies neither part of the Curcio test. Mitchell holds [34]*34(p. 332) that a probable cause hearing constitutes an integral part of a criminal prosecution; accordingly, the present order does not “[terminate] a separate and distinct proceeeding.” State v. Curcio, supra. Mitchell also holds (p. 331) that the merits of a finding of probable cause are reviewable after conviction and sentencing; accordingly, the present order does not “so [conclude] the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.” State v. Curcio, supra.

The appeal is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from an order of the trial court holding the defendant, Anthony Atkins, for trial after a finding by the trial court that the state had established probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the crimes of murder and felony murder. This court gave notice to the parties to appear and be heard on whether the defendant’s appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. We conclude that the trial court’s order was not a final judgment and that this appeal should therefore be dismissed.

Because the trial court’s order was rendered before the defendant’s conviction and sentencing, the order is interlocutory and its appealability is governed by the rules set forth in State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31, 463 A.2d 566 (1983). As State v. Mitchell, 200 Conn. 323, 332, 512 A.2d 140 (1986), demonstrates, the order satisfies neither part of the Curcio test. Mitchell holds [34]*34(p. 332) that a probable cause hearing constitutes an integral part of a criminal prosecution; accordingly, the present order does not “[terminate] a separate and distinct proceeeding.” State v. Curcio, supra. Mitchell also holds (p. 331) that the merits of a finding of probable cause are reviewable after conviction and sentencing; accordingly, the present order does not “so [conclude] the rights of the parties that further proceedings cannot affect them.” State v. Curcio, supra.

The appeal is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

522 A.2d 1234, 203 Conn. 33, 1987 Conn. LEXIS 805, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-atkins-conn-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack