State v. Lombardo

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Lombardo

582 A.2d 922, 23 Conn. App. 823, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 398

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 21, 1990

Docket8595

StatusPublished

This text of 582 A.2d 922 (State v. Lombardo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Lombardo, 582 A.2d 922, 23 Conn. App. 823, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 398 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, after a trial to the court, of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a).

Much of the state’s evidence was disputed, but it is axiomatic that this court cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. State v. Speers, 17 Conn. App. 587, 592, 554 A.2d 769, cert. denied, 211 Conn. [824]*824808, 559 A.2d 1142, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851,110 S. Ct. 150, 107 L. Ed. 2d 108, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S. Ct. 241, 107 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1989). The defendant raises five claims on appeal that attack either the court’s factual findings or its exercise of discretion. Our review of the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s factual finding. The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061; see U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. K. J. Enterprises, Inc., 19 Conn. App. 806, 563 A.2d 1386 (1989).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, after a trial to the court, of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-277 (a).

Much of the state’s evidence was disputed, but it is axiomatic that this court cannot retry the facts or pass on the credibility of witnesses. State v. Speers, 17 Conn. App. 587, 592, 554 A.2d 769, cert. denied, 211 Conn. [824]*824808, 559 A.2d 1142, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 851,110 S. Ct. 150, 107 L. Ed. 2d 108, 493 U.S. 893, 110 S. Ct. 241, 107 L. Ed. 2d 192 (1989). The defendant raises five claims on appeal that attack either the court’s factual findings or its exercise of discretion. Our review of the record discloses that the evidence was sufficient to support the court’s factual finding. The defendant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that its decision was otherwise erroneous in law. Practice Book § 4061; see U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. K. J. Enterprises, Inc., 19 Conn. App. 806, 563 A.2d 1386 (1989).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 A.2d 922, 23 Conn. App. 823, 1990 Conn. App. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lombardo-connappct-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack