State v. Mercado

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Mercado

642 A.2d 723, 34 Conn. App. 501, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 170

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedMay 24, 1994

Docket11592

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 642 A.2d 723 (State v. Mercado) 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. Mercado, 642 A.2d 723, 34 Conn. App. 501, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 170 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction of a charge of possession of narcotics with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b). The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. After an evidentiary hearing,¹ the trial court, in an oral decision from the bench, denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The defendant elected to waive her right to a jury trial. After the bench trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years, suspended after five years, with five years probation with special conditions. This appeal followed.

The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that the defendant did not have standing to contest the legality of the police actions, (2) found that the defendant had consented to undercover Detective Anthony Battistone’s entry into the apartment, (3) applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery, and (4) failed to resolve the factual dispute as to whether Battistone signaled the undercover team before or after he saw the narcotics.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts are set forth in the companion case of State v. Vargas, 34 Conn. App. 492, 642 A.2d 47 (1994). Because we held in State v. Vargas, supra, 492, that the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence was not improper, we need not address the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly found that she did not have standing to challenge the search and seizure.

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 the judgment of conviction of a charge of possession of narcotics with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b). The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence. After an evidentiary hearing,¹ the trial court, in an oral decision from the bench, denied the defendant’s motion to suppress. The defendant elected to waive her right to a jury trial. After the bench trial, the trial court found the defendant guilty. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of ten years, suspended after five years, with five years probation with special conditions. This appeal followed.

The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) found that the defendant did not have standing to contest the legality of the police actions, (2) found that the defendant had consented to undercover Detective Anthony Battistone’s entry into the apartment, (3) applied the doctrine of inevitable discovery, and (4) failed to resolve the factual dispute as to whether Battistone signaled the undercover team before or after he saw the narcotics.² We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The facts are set forth in the companion case of State v. Vargas, 34 Conn. App. 492, 642 A.2d 47 (1994). Because we held in State v. Vargas, supra, 492, that the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence was not improper, we need not address the defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly found that she did not have standing to challenge the search and seizure.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

642 A.2d 723, 34 Conn. App. 501, 1994 Conn. App. LEXIS 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mercado-connappct-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack