State v. Jacobson

644 A.2d 331, 229 Conn. 824, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 178
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedJune 28, 1994
Docket14837
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 644 A.2d 331 (State v. Jacobson) 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. Jacobson, 644 A.2d 331, 229 Conn. 824, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 178 (Colo. 1994).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant, Arthur E. Jacobson, was arrested on September 22, 1991, for operating a motor vehicle while his operator’s license was under suspension in violation of General Statutes § 14-215 (c).1 After a plea of nolo contendere, he was convicted of that charge and sentenced by the trial court to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of thirty days and fined $500. Thereafter, he appealed to the Appellate Court pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a.2

[826]*826The Appellate Court concluded that the trial court had improperly convicted and sentenced the defendant for a violation of § 14-215 (c). State v. Jacobson, 31 Conn. App. 797, 804, 627 A.2d 474 (1993). It determined, however, that the defendant had committed the lesser included offense of violating § 14-215 (a) and that he was subject to the penalties provided by § 14-215 (b),3 which are less severe than those provided by § 14-215 (c). It, therefore, remanded the case to the trial court for sentencing pursuant to § 14-215 (b). Id., 806.

We granted certification4 to consider the issue of whether a defendant, whose motor vehicle operator’s license had been suspended originally because of a violation of General Statutes § 14-227a (a)5 was subject [827]*827to the enhanced penalties of § 14-215 (c) when the period of suspension for violation of § 14-227a (a) mandated by § 14-227a (h) (1) (C)6 had expired, but his operator’s license had not been restored because of his failure to furnish the commissioner of motor vehicles with proof of financial responsibility pursuant to § 14-112.7

The Appellate Court, after construing the relevant statutes, concluded that, although the defendant’s operator’s license was under suspension when he was arrested on September 22,1991, it was not under suspension because of his March 28, 1989 conviction of operating under the influence in violation of § 14-227a [828]*828(a) for which it had been suspended initially. In arriving at its conclusion, the Appellate Court determined that the one year period of suspension mandated by § 14-227a (h) (1) (C) had expired by the time of the defendant’s arrest for operating under suspension. State v. Jacobson, supra, 31 Conn. App. 799. The court further concluded that, because the period of suspension imposed for the defendant’s violation of § 14-227a (a) had expired at the time of his arrest in 1991, he was not under suspension at that time “on account of a violation of subsection (a) of section 14-227a,” an essential element for a prosecution pursuant to § 14-215 (c). Id., 804.

The Appellate Court decided, however, that the defendant’s operator’s license was under suspension at the time of his arrest because he had failed to furnish the commissioner with proof of financial responsibility as required by § 14-112 when his suspension, because of a violation of § 14-227a, had terminated. The defendant, the court determined, was therefore in violation of § 14-215 (a) and, consequently, subject to the penalties of § 14-215 (b). Id.

After considering the briefs and arguments of the parties and examining the record on appeal, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court is correct and must be affirmed. The issue on which we granted certification was properly resolved in the Appellate Court’s thoughtful and thorough unanimous opinion. It would serve no useful purpose for this court to repeat the discussion contained therein. Cf. Board of Education v. State Board of Education, 228 Conn. 433, 436, 636 A.2d 378 (1994); Stankiewicz v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 211 Conn. 76, 78, 556 A.2d 1024 (1989); State v. Leonard, 210 Conn. 480, 481, 556 A.2d 611 (1989).

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

State v. Schimanski
344 Conn. 435 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2022)
State v. Schimanski
201 Conn. App. 164 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 2020)
State v. Valinski
756 A.2d 1250 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2000)
State v. Byrd
659 A.2d 1201 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1995)
State v. Cook
653 A.2d 829 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
644 A.2d 331, 229 Conn. 824, 1994 Conn. LEXIS 178, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jacobson-conn-1994.