State v. Bostwick

740 A.2d 381, 251 Conn. 117, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 375
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided November 2, 1999·No. SC 16127·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinions

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Charles Bostwick, was charged by information with violating the conditions of his probation. Following a trial to the court, McKeever, J., he was found guilty and sentenced to the unexecuted portion of his prison sentence. The defendant then appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed his conviction. State v. Bostwick, 52 Conn. App. 557, 559, 728 A.2d 10 (1999). Thereafter, this court granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that a violation of probation need not be wilful in order to justify a revocation of probation?” State v. Bostwick, 249 Conn. 920, 733 A.2d 235 (1999). During the pendency of his appeal to this court, however, the defendant died, and the state moved to dismiss his appeal as moot.

“When, during the pendency of an appeal, events have occurred that preclude an appellate court from granting any practical relief through its disposition of the merits, a case has become moot. In re Romance M., 229 Conn. 345, 357, 641 A.2d 378 (1994). It is a well-settled general rule that the existence of an actual [119] controversy is an essential requisite to appellate jurisdiction; it is not the province of appellate courts to decide moot questions, disconnected from the granting of actual relief or from the determination of which no practical relief can follow. . . . Loisel v. Rowe, 233 Conn. 370, 378, 660 A.2d 323 (1995).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Conetta v. Stamford, 246 Conn. 281, 295, 715 A.2d 756 (1998). Accordingly, because there is no practical relief that can be afforded by a disposition of the merits of the defendant’s appeal, the motion to dismiss is granted. See State v. Trantolo, 209 Conn. 169, 549 A.2d 1074 (1988).

The appeal is dismissed.

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

State v. Bostwick, 740 A.2d 381, 251 Conn. 117, 1999 Conn. LEXIS 375 (Colo. 1999).

740 A.2d 381 (State v. Bostwick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Graham
337 Conn. 857 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2021)
State v. Nalewajk
211 A.3d 122 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2019)
State v. SHAKIR
22 A.3d 1285 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2011)
State v. Fisher
995 A.2d 105 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2010)
State v. Pender
976 A.2d 99 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2008)
State v. Fowler
926 A.2d 672 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2007)
Tracy v. Allstate Insurance
819 A.2d 859 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2003)
State v. McElveen
802 A.2d 74 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2002)
State v. Jones
787 A.2d 43 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
In re Jeffrey C.
779 A.2d 765 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
State v. Young
778 A.2d 1015 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
State v. Hill
773 A.2d 931 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2001)
Polizos v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
767 A.2d 1202 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2001)
State v. Shannon
764 A.2d 1281 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2001)
State v. Pressley
755 A.2d 929 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2000)
State v. Cyr
751 A.2d 420 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2000)