State v. Davis

818 A.2d 777, 263 Conn. 136, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 127
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedApril 15, 2003
DocketSC 16790
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 818 A.2d 777 (State v. Davis) 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. Davis, 818 A.2d 777, 263 Conn. 136, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 127 (Colo. 2003).

Opinion

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant, Samuel Davis, appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting him of four crimes. The issue presented by this appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that General Statutes § 53-202k, which provides for a sentence enhancement of five years imprisonment when a qualifying felony is committed with a firearm,1 imposes separate enhancements [138]*138of five years each where a defendant is convicted of multiple qualifying felonies arising from the same incident. We conclude that § 53-202k does provide for the enhancement of the sentence for each qualifying offense of which a defendant is convicted. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.

“The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In the early morning hours of August 17, 1997, the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle in Hartford with two other individuals. The three men decided to rob a drug dealer and the defendant drove one of the occupants to his car so that he could retrieve his gun. The three men drove around Hartford but could not find a drug dealer to rob .... Eventually, the defendant and one of the other men exited the car and came upon the victim, James Boland, who had just been dropped off in front of his house. Boland, a member of the neighborhood block watch program, was armed and proficient in the use of firearms. As the defendant and one of the other men approached Boland, a gunfight ensued in which Boland returned fire. Boland and the defendant both suffered gunshot wounds.” State v. Davis, 69 Conn. App. 717, 719-20, 796 A.2d 596 (2002). Boland died as a result. Id., 720.

The defendant was convicted of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c,2 attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General [139]*139Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2)3 and 53a-134 (a) (2),4 conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a)5 and 53a-134 (a) (2), and carrying a pistol or revolver without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35 (a).6 Id., 719. Thereafter, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly had imposed three separate sentence enhancements under § 53-202k. Id. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. The defendant petitioned for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court to this court, and we granted the petition, limited to the following issue: “Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court properly enhanced the defendant’s sentence for each quahfying felony?” State v. Davis, 261 Conn. 904, 802 A.2d 854 (2002).

After fully considering the briefs and arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. The thoughtful and compre[140]*140hensive opinion of the Appellate Court properly resolved the issue in this certified appeal. A further discussion by this court would serve no useful purpose. See Kitmirides v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 260 Conn. 336,338-39, 796 A.2d 1185 (2002), citing State v. Butler, 255 Conn. 828, 830, 769 A.2d 697 (2001), Wood v. Amer, 253 Conn. 514, 515-16, 755 A.2d 175 (2000), and Biller Associates v. Route 156 Realty Co., 252 Conn. 400, 404, 746 A.2d 785 (2000).

The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Davis v. Rinaldi
D. Connecticut, 2021
Davis v. Commissioner of Correction
7 A.3d 941 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
818 A.2d 777, 263 Conn. 136, 2003 Conn. LEXIS 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-conn-2003.