State v. Olszewski

673 A.2d 586, 40 Conn. App. 724, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 151
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedMarch 26, 1996
Docket14285
StatusPublished

This text of 673 A.2d 586 (State v. Olszewski) 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. Olszewski, 673 A.2d 586, 40 Conn. App. 724, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 151 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered by the court, following the acceptance of his plea of nolo contendere1 to the charge of operating a motor vehicle while his license was under suspension in violation of General Statutes § 14-215 (c). The defendant challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to dismiss.2 He claims that the trial court [725]*725improperly found that the arrest occurred within the proper jurisdiction of the arresting officer. We are unable to determine what the court found as the record lacks any facts or findings. The defendant has failed to present a written memorandum of decision or a transcribed copy of an oral decision signed by the court explaining the factual basis for its decision in denying the motion as required by Practice Book § 4059. It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide an adequate record for review. Practice Book § 4061; Gelormino v. Blaustein, 31 Conn. App. 750, 751, 626 A.2d 1325 (1993); State v. Rios, 30 Conn. App. 712, 715, 622 A.2d 618 (1993).

The judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Rios
622 A.2d 618 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)
Gelormino v. Blaustein
626 A.2d 1325 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
673 A.2d 586, 40 Conn. App. 724, 1996 Conn. App. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-olszewski-connappct-1996.