Opinion
(AC 17174)
Argued December 17, 1998
Officially released January 19, 1999
Four substitute informations charging the defendant with two counts each of the crimes of larceny in the third degree, robbery in the first degree, larceny in the sixth degree and conspiracy to commit larceny in the sixth degree and with seven counts of the crime of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New Haven, Juvenile Matters, where the cases were transferred to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court; thereafter, the court, Devlin, J., denied the defendant's motions to dismiss and granted the state's motion to consolidate the cases; subsequently, the court denied the defendant's applications for youthful offender status; thereafter, the defendant was presented to the court on a plea of nolo contendere to four counts of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree; judgments of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court. Affirmed.
Lauren Weisfeld, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Christopher T. Godialis, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and Cecilia Weiderhold, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant appeals from the judgments of conviction of four counts of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134. The convictions were based on the defendant's conditional plea of nolo contendere and written reservation entered into pursuant to General Statutes § 54-94a and Practice Book § 61-6. Pursuant to those provisions, the defendant reserved for review his motions to dismiss, which challenged the constitutionality of the automatic transfer provision of General Statutes § 46b-127(a).
The defendant presents two claims on appeal. The first challenges the constitutionality of the automatic transfer provision of General Statutes § 46b-127(a). Our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Angel C., 245 Conn. 93, 715 A.2d 652 (1998), is controlling with regard to that issue and requires affirmance of the trial court's decision. The second claim is that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the defendant's application for youthful offender status under General Statutes §§ 54-76b through 54-76o. As the defendant conceded at oral argument, his appeal is limited by the conditional plea and written reservation. Neither General Statutes § 54-94a nor Practice Book § 61-6 encompasses the claim regarding the trial court's exercise of discretion in denying youthful offender status to the defendant. Accordingly, this claim is not reviewable.